Post by: yakimanoob on June 02, 2017, 11:03:49 AM
It seems like a good time to mention I moved to Yakima two years ago from my home state of Alabama, so I'm new to co-existing with large predators (and elk and bighorns and goats and cougars, for that matter).
I get thinking that wolves in Washington are mismanaged. I get thinking they're overpopulated. I get wanting to hunt them and manage them like any other state wildlife species. But I really don't get all the drama and talking about them like they're evil, or their presence is a sign that the world's going to pot.
Wolves are beautiful and fascinating and majestic creatures. Should there be as many as there are in Washington? More? Less? I don't have the slightest clue what the answer to that question is, but I don't hate the creatures themselves, and I have a hard time understanding why so many people seem to.
Am I missing something?
Post by: Mr Mykiss on June 02, 2017, 11:14:57 AM
Post by: WapitiTalk1 on June 02, 2017, 11:17:51 AM
Post by: Katmai Guy on June 02, 2017, 11:18:41 AM
Post by: KFhunter on June 02, 2017, 11:19:26 AM
Quote
Am I missing something?
Yes. Everything.
I don't even hate wolves, that would be to anthropomorphize them which I do not do, they simply are.
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on June 02, 2017, 11:22:50 AM
Post by: KFhunter on June 02, 2017, 11:23:09 AM
What you're missing is---> Wolves make it much harder to kill elk from the road...mic drop.
You're so wrong, wolves make it far easier to kill Elk from the road. I'm seeing Elk on roads I've driven daily for 20+ years and never seen an Elk until recently, the wolves scatter them and drive them from traditional holding areas which makes them more visible.
It's like hunting big mules in a burned area "OMG there's so many big bucks this year!" No, you just see further. Same with wolves and elk, they make the elk more visible due to constant movement.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 02, 2017, 11:25:03 AM
So...all the drama about wolves is part of a much larger debate/disagreement than it is about wolves themselves.
There are extremists on all sides of wolf issues...they all lie, distort the truth, and selectively use information to push their agenda. As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle...but its not always easy to hear it over the screeching from extremists on both sides of wolf issues. :twocents:
Post by: KFhunter on June 02, 2017, 11:27:13 AM
I don't get it either. Everyone I talk to here in Idaho acts like they have ruined hunting. Id say the hunting has never been better. Maybe they don't stand out in the open all day like they used to, but that just means you need to adapt and change your tactics. I haven't had an issue with them being here. They aren't around every corner, and the animals are adapting. I suppose new things scare people, but if we want to promote the idea that hunters are conservationists and care about all animals, we better change our tune. Advocating for the extermination of a species is giving hunters a bad image. We need to promote management of them like any other predator. Coyotes kill more livestock than wolves, but I don't see people up in arms over that. We need to keep a calm head, make sure we have a seat at the table, and lose the all r nothing mentality when it comes to wolves. Go to Alaska, if they ruin hunting, why is Alaska such a prime destination for hunters world wide? Hunt them, manage them, and learn to live with em.
Idaho is irrelevant to the conditions in WA, Idaho is extensively managing wolves, WA is not. Idaho has more Elk but require less wolves than WA does.
If you've hunted Idaho for years then tell me how many more Washington license plates you see now than 5 or 10 years ago?
Idaho is what Washington should be emulating.
Post by: ghosthunter on June 02, 2017, 11:31:20 AM
And if wolves prey on livestock than they need to be shot with little or no concern.
Post by: 2MANY on June 02, 2017, 11:34:39 AM
They are soooo stinky, stiff, and they have a smile that lasts until the maggots come.
Post by: b0bbyg on June 02, 2017, 11:40:00 AM
There are extremists on all sides of wolf issues...they all lie, distort the truth, and selectively use information to push their agenda. As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle...but its not always easy to hear it over the screeching from extremists on both sides of wolf issues. :twocents:
I agree with idahohuntr I think much of the arguing about the wolves is more an argument of control and who should/should not make these decisions. The quoted statement is dead on for many issues as well as this one, and the reason many will chose to just not debate online.
If the people / regions who are the most affected got to have to loudest voice to how they managed and reintroduced wolves I would probably not have an issue with it. But that is not how it works currently.
Personally I hope they don't make it to where I hunt, but I expect they will.
Post by: Buckewe on June 02, 2017, 11:53:19 AM
Post by: Gringo31 on June 02, 2017, 11:54:11 AM
In a state that does a horrible job of predator management (coyotes, bears, cougar, sea lions, pelicans, cormorants, hawks, etc) we didn't need to add another apex predator. (I realize some of the predators I mentioned are very protected).
Let me say it this way....
Farmers grow crops. They protect them, care for them and then EAT them. They don't want the bugs to eat the crop or they don't get any. They don't eat all of it because they need seed for future years. Management decided to add bugs and tell me that they are good for me and I should be enjoying watching my wormy field and I shouldn't be eating my crop anyway. Or that the bugs will make my crop healthier.
This concept makes people like myself angry. Mostly because the bugs don't care for, manage or protect the crop we all love.
Gringo
Post by: kentrek on June 02, 2017, 11:55:41 AM
Think of walking up on a dozen elk that were killed for sport and left to rot, then you might understand
Think of having one of your prized hound dogs youv invested years into ripped to shreds and wonder how the wolves got there and then you might start to get the idea
Think of having your income get gobbled up one calf at a time, then you might get the idea
Think of having to sell your family guiding business because the hunting just isn't there any more....
Now imagine if you got to experience all of this...how would you feel about an invasive species???
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 02, 2017, 12:17:55 PM
I don't get it either. Everyone I talk to here in Idaho acts like they have ruined hunting. Id say the hunting has never been better. Maybe they don't stand out in the open all day like they used to, but that just means you need to adapt and change your tactics. I haven't had an issue with them being here. They aren't around every corner, and the animals are adapting. I suppose new things scare people, but if we want to promote the idea that hunters are conservationists and care about all animals, we better change our tune. Advocating for the extermination of a species is giving hunters a bad image. We need to promote management of them like any other predator. Coyotes kill more livestock than wolves, but I don't see people up in arms over that. We need to keep a calm head, make sure we have a seat at the table, and lose the all r nothing mentality when it comes to wolves. Go to Alaska, if they ruin hunting, why is Alaska such a prime destination for hunters world wide? Hunt them, manage them, and learn to live with em.
Idaho is irrelevant to the conditions in WA, Idaho is extensively managing wolves, WA is not. Idaho has more Elk but require less wolves than WA does.
If you've hunted Idaho for years then tell me how many more Washington license plates you see now than 5 or 10 years ago?
Idaho is what Washington should be emulating.
Comparing WA wolf plan, public perception, and management to ID wolf plan, public perception, and management is tantamount to comparing Arkansas gun attitudes with CA gun attitudes.
First of all, the whole premise of the USFWS plan to reinstate wolves into the GYA was based on lies, misinformation, and ignored or left out facts. They didn't tell Congress the facts about diseases the wolves carry. They didn't give fair assessments as to the financial impact of reintroduction. They downplayed the impact they would eventually have on ungulate populations. They released animals they knew were infected with the zoonosis parasite organism echinococcus granulosus.
In WA specifically, the adopted wolf plan is unbelievably outrageous in its scope compared to the other western states. For example: Washington has 16 times the population density of Montana, half the area, and 8 times the population. Yet, our wolf plan calls for 50% more breeding pairs than MT's plan. Why? Because the wildlife commission has been unduly pressured by the Governor's office and the corrupt USFWS to push it through and did so. In the years since, we've seen the commission increasingly infected by animal rights groups who will ensure that not only will those outrageous goals be met, but that at that time they still won't allow management of these eaters.
In relation to MT, WY, and ID, our wolf plan should've been for 5 breeding pairs, situated in very specific and remote wilderness areas of the state (if at all), and immediate management of breeding pairs/packs which establish outside of those areas. The fact is that the people and ungulate wildlife of the NE corner of the state are bearing 90% of the problems created by those who will never have to suffer from the outrageous wolf plan. Personally, I doubt that wolves will be managed by hunting during my lifetime, or ever. The extremists in WA who designed this plan knew full well that the dreadlock-wearing, tie-died, patchouli oil crowd and the huge animal rights lobbies would lie to our population to support never managing their numbers. As well, I believe that many who support the reintroduction of wolves do so as a tool to eliminate big game hunting altogether. They realize that increasing the numbers of apex predators will decrease the ungulate populations and force the wildlife managers to limit hunting opportunities until they're gone.
I think wolves are cool to look at, hear, pet. I don't have a problem with wolves. I have a huge problems with the illegal nature of their reintroduction and with the actual impetus by the animal rights groups to use them to end our hunting heritage.
Post by: Mfowl on June 02, 2017, 12:18:21 PM
Post by: 2MANY on June 02, 2017, 12:31:40 PM
I think once you invest a good decade into learning an area and then watch the wolves come in an completely destroy it, then think of how the wolves got there...you might understand
Think of walking up on a dozen elk that were killed for sport and left to rot, then you might understand
Think of having one of your prized hound dogs youv invested years into ripped to shreds and wonder how the wolves got there and then you might start to get the idea
Think of having your income get gobbled up one calf at a time, then you might get the idea
Think of having to sell your family guiding business because the hunting just isn't there any more....
Now imagine if you got to experience all of this...how would you feel about an invasive species???
THIS X 1M
Post by: buglebrush on June 02, 2017, 01:08:01 PM
I think once you invest a good decade into learning an area and then watch the wolves come in an completely destroy it, then think of how the wolves got there...you might understand:yeah:.
Think of walking up on a dozen elk that were killed for sport and left to rot, then you might understand
Think of having one of your prized hound dogs youv invested years into ripped to shreds and wonder how the wolves got there and then you might start to get the idea
Think of having your income get gobbled up one calf at a time, then you might get the idea
Think of having to sell your family guiding business because the hunting just isn't there any more....
Now imagine if you got to experience all of this...how would you feel about an invasive species???
Post by: Reidus on June 02, 2017, 01:41:50 PM
I think once you invest a good decade into learning an area and then watch the wolves come in an completely destroy it, then think of how the wolves got there...you might understand:yeah:.
Think of walking up on a dozen elk that were killed for sport and left to rot, then you might understand
Think of having one of your prized hound dogs youv invested years into ripped to shreds and wonder how the wolves got there and then you might start to get the idea
Think of having your income get gobbled up one calf at a time, then you might get the idea
Think of having to sell your family guiding business because the hunting just isn't there any more....
Now imagine if you got to experience all of this...how would you feel about an invasive species???
:yeah:
Man has replaced wolves as far as I'm concerned.
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on June 02, 2017, 01:48:41 PM
I don't get it either. Everyone I talk to here in Idaho acts like they have ruined hunting. Id say the hunting has never been better. Maybe they don't stand out in the open all day like they used to, but that just means you need to adapt and change your tactics. I haven't had an issue with them being here. They aren't around every corner, and the animals are adapting. I suppose new things scare people, but if we want to promote the idea that hunters are conservationists and care about all animals, we better change our tune. Advocating for the extermination of a species is giving hunters a bad image. We need to promote management of them like any other predator. Coyotes kill more livestock than wolves, but I don't see people up in arms over that. We need to keep a calm head, make sure we have a seat at the table, and lose the all r nothing mentality when it comes to wolves. Go to Alaska, if they ruin hunting, why is Alaska such a prime destination for hunters world wide? Hunt them, manage them, and learn to live with em.
Idaho is irrelevant to the conditions in WA, Idaho is extensively managing wolves, WA is not. Idaho has more Elk but require less wolves than WA does.
If you've hunted Idaho for years then tell me how many more Washington license plates you see now than 5 or 10 years ago?
Idaho is what Washington should be emulating.
I was a.washington plate in Idaho for a few years, and this was when wolves had "ruined" the elk hunting here.
I don't think wolves are driving people to.idaho, it is the lack of opportunity in Washington, eastern specifically, to kill elk every year. That's why I left. More people come here because the cost is manageable and the opportunity is high if you put in the work.
Washington needs to be proactive in wolf management and take a.lesson from Idaho, but they also need to be concerned with growing the population of elk. There is plenty of prime elk habitat that is void of any elk.
Post by: trophyhunt on June 02, 2017, 02:09:27 PM
I think once you invest a good decade into learning an area and then watch the wolves come in an completely destroy it, then think of how the wolves got there...you might understandThat pretty much says it all, I hate wolves and wish they were not in Idaho , Washington, well, all lower 48 states.
Think of walking up on a dozen elk that were killed for sport and left to rot, then you might understand
Think of having one of your prized hound dogs youv invested years into ripped to shreds and wonder how the wolves got there and then you might start to get the idea
Think of having your income get gobbled up one calf at a time, then you might get the idea
Think of having to sell your family guiding business because the hunting just isn't there any more....
Now imagine if you got to experience all of this...how would you feel about an invasive species???
Post by: Magnum_Willys on June 02, 2017, 02:18:33 PM
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on June 02, 2017, 02:23:26 PM
I think once you invest a good decade into learning an area and then watch the wolves come in an completely destroy it, then think of how the wolves got there...you might understand
Think of walking up on a dozen elk that were killed for sport and left to rot, then you might understand
Think of having one of your prized hound dogs youv invested years into ripped to shreds and wonder how the wolves got there and then you might start to get the idea
Think of having your income get gobbled up one calf at a time, then you might get the idea
Think of having to sell your family guiding business because the hunting just isn't there any more....
Now imagine if you got to experience all of this...how would you feel about an invasive species???
I've had bigger problems with coyotes and racoons killing my farm animals than wolves.
Cougars and bears sometimes attack dogs yet guys keep at it.
Other hunters and poachers ruin more hunting areas than a few dogs. If the wolves are around, then I know the elk are there.
Post by: KFhunter on June 02, 2017, 02:41:38 PM
If a Cougar comes in and attacks your dog the WDFW will come in and kill it with little or no fuss at all, or you can shoot it yourself. Same with bears.
Wolves not so much.
Quote
I don't think wolves are driving people to.idaho, it is the lack of opportunity in Washington, eastern specifically, to kill elk every year. That's why I left.
Opportunity is being curtailed in WA directly due to wolf activity and that loss of opportunity will only accelerate as the wolves get more populated.
Post by: Smokepole on June 02, 2017, 03:13:16 PM
Wolves are fine in BIG wilderness areas. Not good here. :twocents:
Post by: trophyhunt on June 02, 2017, 03:13:57 PM
What's coyotes and raccoons got to do with wolves? You can shoot trap and shoot coons, you can even trap coyotes and shoot them all year long.:yeah: :bash:
If a Cougar comes in and attacks your dog the WDFW will come in and kill it with little or no fuss at all, or you can shoot it yourself. Same with bears.
Wolves not so much.QuoteI don't think wolves are driving people to.idaho, it is the lack of opportunity in Washington, eastern specifically, to kill elk every year. That's why I left.
Opportunity is being curtailed in WA directly due to wolf activity and that loss of opportunity will only accelerate as the wolves get more populated.
Post by: kentrek on June 02, 2017, 03:19:09 PM
I think once you invest a good decade into learning an area and then watch the wolves come in an completely destroy it, then think of how the wolves got there...you might understand
Think of walking up on a dozen elk that were killed for sport and left to rot, then you might understand
Think of having one of your prized hound dogs youv invested years into ripped to shreds and wonder how the wolves got there and then you might start to get the idea
Think of having your income get gobbled up one calf at a time, then you might get the idea
Think of having to sell your family guiding business because the hunting just isn't there any more....
Now imagine if you got to experience all of this...how would you feel about an invasive species???
I've had bigger problems with coyotes and racoons killing my farm animals than wolves.
Cougars and bears sometimes attack dogs yet guys keep at it.
Other hunters and poachers ruin more hunting areas than a few dogs. If the wolves are around, then I know the elk are there.
Soubds like you've had much more experience with wolve than me
Post by: Stalkin Prey on June 02, 2017, 03:21:46 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: DaveMonti on June 02, 2017, 03:35:21 PM
Wolves are symbolic of the polarization or value differences between rural and urban communities in this country - and to a larger extent what control the federal government should/should not have in the West.
So...all the drama about wolves is part of a much larger debate/disagreement than it is about wolves themselves.
There are extremists on all sides of wolf issues...they all lie, distort the truth, and selectively use information to push their agenda. As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle...but its not always easy to hear it over the screeching from extremists on both sides of wolf issues. :twocents:
A voice of reason! Thanks idahohuntr! Not enough of this on these emotional issues.
Post by: yakimanoob on June 02, 2017, 03:40:52 PM
The great wolf debate. In my opinion and only my opinion adding an additional apex predator without any type of management plan is foolish.
I wasn't exactly looking for a debate; just curious about why the topic has gotten so cantankerous. But for what it's worth, I totally agree that any introduction of ANY kind of animal without a well-reasoned management plan is foolish. The same applies to plants for that matter (I come from the land of kudzu...).
Post by: Stalkin Prey on June 02, 2017, 03:43:36 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on June 02, 2017, 04:44:38 PM
I think once you invest a good decade into learning an area and then watch the wolves come in an completely destroy it, then think of how the wolves got there...you might understand
Think of walking up on a dozen elk that were killed for sport and left to rot, then you might understand
Think of having one of your prized hound dogs youv invested years into ripped to shreds and wonder how the wolves got there and then you might start to get the idea
Think of having your income get gobbled up one calf at a time, then you might get the idea
Think of having to sell your family guiding business because the hunting just isn't there any more....
Now imagine if you got to experience all of this...how would you feel about an invasive species???
I've had bigger problems with coyotes and racoons killing my farm animals than wolves.
Cougars and bears sometimes attack dogs yet guys keep at it.
Other hunters and poachers ruin more hunting areas than a few dogs. If the wolves are around, then I know the elk are there.
Soubds like you've had much more experience with wolve than me
My experience is in Idaho only, but I have heard them twice in 6 years. We had a few roaming the neighborhood this winter close to post falls and they killed some chickens. We have lost more sheep and chickens to racoons and coyotes and neighborhood dogs than wolves.
I'd say I spend a fair amount of time in the woods most of the year and I have not seen the infestation that most of the guys you run into talk about.
Washington does need a management similar to Idaho and needs to be transparent on information. Wolves and man can coexist as long as they are managed and not allowed to roam free immune to all forms of control.
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on June 02, 2017, 04:47:20 PM
What's coyotes and raccoons got to do with wolves? You can shoot trap and shoot coons, you can even trap coyotes and shoot them all year long.It's been curtailed long before wolves were even present. Seasons being shortened and antler restrictions curtailed opportunity. Who wants to chase spikes for a week?
If a Cougar comes in and attacks your dog the WDFW will come in and kill it with little or no fuss at all, or you can shoot it yourself. Same with bears.
Wolves not so much.QuoteI don't think wolves are driving people to.idaho, it is the lack of opportunity in Washington, eastern specifically, to kill elk every year. That's why I left.
Opportunity is being curtailed in WA directly due to wolf activity and that loss of opportunity will only accelerate as the wolves get more populated.
Post by: yakimanoob on June 02, 2017, 05:10:25 PM
Who wants to chase spikes for a week?:hello: I'll do it! :)
Post by: kentrek on June 02, 2017, 05:16:19 PM
I think once you invest a good decade into learning an area and then watch the wolves come in an completely destroy it, then think of how the wolves got there...you might understand
Think of walking up on a dozen elk that were killed for sport and left to rot, then you might understand
Think of having one of your prized hound dogs youv invested years into ripped to shreds and wonder how the wolves got there and then you might start to get the idea
Think of having your income get gobbled up one calf at a time, then you might get the idea
Think of having to sell your family guiding business because the hunting just isn't there any more....
Now imagine if you got to experience all of this...how would you feel about an invasive species???
I've had bigger problems with coyotes and racoons killing my farm animals than wolves.
Cougars and bears sometimes attack dogs yet guys keep at it.
Other hunters and poachers ruin more hunting areas than a few dogs. If the wolves are around, then I know the elk are there.
Soubds like you've had much more experience with wolve than me
My experience is in Idaho only, but I have heard them twice in 6 years.
:tup:
Post by: buglebrush on June 03, 2017, 09:16:22 PM
:bdid:
Post by: WapitiTalk1 on June 03, 2017, 09:19:51 PM
According to some of the logic on this thread: jihadists must be harmless, because they haven't injected me personally.
:bdid:
I like your slant/analogy mister. It's time for everybody to wake up........
Post by: ribka on June 03, 2017, 09:37:17 PM
Imagine the usfws started introducing kudzu into areas that were not yet affected or had it spread under control.
Then apply that same voice of reasoning to the wolf being introduced into Montana Idaho Washington and Oregon Wyoming Wisconsin Minnesota.
Wolves are symbolic of the polarization or value differences between rural and urban communities in this country - and to a larger extent what control the federal government should/should not have in the West.
So...all the drama about wolves is part of a much larger debate/disagreement than it is about wolves themselves.
There are extremists on all sides of wolf issues...they all lie, distort the truth, and selectively use information to push their agenda. As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle...but its not always easy to hear it over the screeching from extremists on both sides of wolf issues. :twocents:
A voice of reason! Thanks idahohuntr! Not enough of this on these emotional issues.
Post by: yakimanoob on June 04, 2017, 03:47:48 PM
According to some of the logic on this thread: jihadists must be harmless, because they haven't injected me personally.
:bdid:
I like your slant/analogy mister. It's time for everybody to wake up........
Unless I missed something, no one here is arguing that wolves are harmless, much less harmless because they haven't been personally affected.
No sense tearing down the straw man...
Post by: T Pearce on June 04, 2017, 03:55:04 PM
Can't blame the wolf....blame the mgmt!well said.
In a state that does a horrible job of predator management (coyotes, bears, cougar, sea lions, pelicans, cormorants, hawks, etc) we didn't need to add another apex predator. (I realize some of the predators I mentioned are very protected).
Let me say it this way....
Farmers grow crops. They protect them, care for them and then EAT them. They don't want the bugs to eat the crop or they don't get any. They don't eat all of it because they need seed for future years. Management decided to add bugs and tell me that they are good for me and I should be enjoying watching my wormy field and I shouldn't be eating my crop anyway. Or that the bugs will make my crop healthier.
This concept makes people like myself angry. Mostly because the bugs don't care for, manage or protect the crop we all love.
Gringo
Post by: cbond3318 on June 04, 2017, 03:56:14 PM
We've come so far. :o
Post by: flatbkman on June 04, 2017, 08:17:47 PM
Post by: WapitiTalk1 on June 04, 2017, 09:16:52 PM
What's going to happen with the wolves managed by the WDFW? I wouldn't have the slightest idea. But if they screw it up as much as they have the fisheries or the grouse, or the mule, whitetail, and black tail deer, the moose the caribou, the cougar and bear, in this state, we don't have much to worry about.
They'll be given equal rights, and possibly, a bike lane toof their own. Just wait :0.
Post by: EmeraldBullet on June 04, 2017, 10:38:50 PM
What you're missing is---> Wolves make it much harder to kill elk from the road...mic drop.
Yeah that pretty much sums it up.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 05, 2017, 05:28:54 AM
Why don't you try to go to an area where wolves are existent and try to harvest some game animals to eat. Those of us who actually like to hunt know that these wolf hugging groups main agenda is to do away with hunting. This can be done by propagating the wolf population in such a way that hunting will no longer be needed to keep game animals in check. So enough of the wolf in sheep's clothing front.
Post by: trophyhunt on June 05, 2017, 06:00:05 AM
I am thinking a ban from the forum is in order for you. Maybe not a lifetime ban but one that will make you think about your post questions. :chuckle:And that IS the bottom line, period! The wolf is the poster child for ANTI hunting, so if you are truly a wolf lover, think about which side your really on. I'll take my remark to pick a side out, I understand it's not as simple as that.
Why don't you try to go to an area where wolves are existent and try to harvest some game animals to eat. Those of us who actually like to hunt know that these wolf hugging groups main agenda is to do away with hunting. This can be done by propagating the wolf population in such a way that hunting will no longer be needed to keep game animals in check. So enough of the wolf in sheep's clothing front.
Post by: yakimanoob on June 05, 2017, 08:20:26 AM
Are you guys referring to me?I am thinking a ban from the forum is in order for you. Maybe not a lifetime ban but one that will make you think about your post questions. :chuckle:And that IS the bottom line, period! The wolf is the poster child for ANTI hunting, so if you are truly a wolf lover, think about which side your really on. Seriously , pick a side.
Why don't you try to go to an area where wolves are existent and try to harvest some game animals to eat. Those of us who actually like to hunt know that these wolf hugging groups main agenda is to do away with hunting. This can be done by propagating the wolf population in such a way that hunting will no longer be needed to keep game animals in check. So enough of the wolf in sheep's clothing front.
If so, I humbly suggest that if you think it's impossible for me to love wolves as creatures in themselves and still love/advocate/defend hunting, then I'm not the one who's causing the problem here. And neither are the wolves.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 05, 2017, 08:35:27 AM
Post by: Russ McDonald on June 05, 2017, 08:43:10 AM
Having lived in Louisiana and Georgia am familiar with the spread of kudzuSorry to say by wolves have always been in Wisconsin and Minnesota. I grew up with wolves in MN since I left and went in the Navy in 1987 and they move around with the deer population. They opened the season back up in the midwest the last I heard. You can not have a species introduced or otherwise and not manage them. The state needs to de-list the wolf from the endangered species list and then lets go hunting.
Imagine the usfws started introducing kudzu into areas that were not yet affected or had it spread under control.
Then apply that same voice of reasoning to the wolf being introduced into Montana Idaho Washington and Oregon Wyoming Wisconsin Minnesota.Wolves are symbolic of the polarization or value differences between rural and urban communities in this country - and to a larger extent what control the federal government should/should not have in the West.
So...all the drama about wolves is part of a much larger debate/disagreement than it is about wolves themselves.
There are extremists on all sides of wolf issues...they all lie, distort the truth, and selectively use information to push their agenda. As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle...but its not always easy to hear it over the screeching from extremists on both sides of wolf issues. :twocents:
A voice of reason! Thanks idahohuntr! Not enough of this on these emotional issues.
Post by: cbond3318 on June 05, 2017, 09:37:14 AM
Are you guys referring to me?I am thinking a ban from the forum is in order for you. Maybe not a lifetime ban but one that will make you think about your post questions. :chuckle:And that IS the bottom line, period! The wolf is the poster child for ANTI hunting, so if you are truly a wolf lover, think about which side your really on. Seriously , pick a side.
Why don't you try to go to an area where wolves are existent and try to harvest some game animals to eat. Those of us who actually like to hunt know that these wolf hugging groups main agenda is to do away with hunting. This can be done by propagating the wolf population in such a way that hunting will no longer be needed to keep game animals in check. So enough of the wolf in sheep's clothing front.
If so, I humbly suggest that if you think it's impossible for me to love wolves as creatures in themselves and still love/advocate/defend hunting, then I'm not the one who's causing the problem here. And neither are the wolves.
:chuckle: Fall in line boy, or risk ridicule from your peers!
Do your own research, form your own opinions. You don't have to choose a side, just have the self collected knowledge to own your opinion. The rest of this nonsense is just loud shouts reverberated off the tinfoil! :chuckle:
Post by: Timberstalker on June 05, 2017, 09:59:32 AM
Post by: jmscon on June 05, 2017, 01:07:57 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,196122.0.html
Post by: trapp01 on June 05, 2017, 01:11:44 PM
Maybe I'm a little bit of a conspiracy theorist but wolves seem like a way to cull hunting.
It's the same thing the spotted owl did for logging in the 80s and 90s.
Just like the Manama pocket gopher has done for development in thurston county. The guy who spearheaded the Manama lawsuit has a son who is working on the pro wolf side. I heard him speak at the lynnwood wolf meeting.
Post by: buglebrush on June 05, 2017, 09:34:51 PM
Are you guys referring to me?I am thinking a ban from the forum is in order for you. Maybe not a lifetime ban but one that will make you think about your post questions. :chuckle:And that IS the bottom line, period! The wolf is the poster child for ANTI hunting, so if you are truly a wolf lover, think about which side your really on. Seriously , pick a side.
Why don't you try to go to an area where wolves are existent and try to harvest some game animals to eat. Those of us who actually like to hunt know that these wolf hugging groups main agenda is to do away with hunting. This can be done by propagating the wolf population in such a way that hunting will no longer be needed to keep game animals in check. So enough of the wolf in sheep's clothing front.
If so, I humbly suggest that if you think it's impossible for me to love wolves as creatures in themselves and still love/advocate/defend hunting, then I'm not the one who's causing the problem here. And neither are the wolves.
You're exposing your ignorance. For your own good please stop. I'm not going to comment about things I know nothing about, and I highly suggest you follow the same pattern.
Post by: yakimanoob on June 05, 2017, 09:43:46 PM
You're exposing your ignorance. For your own good please stop. I'm not going to comment about things I know nothing about, and I highly suggest you follow the same pattern.
What am I doing that you would like me to stop doing, exactly? What have I commented on that you think I know nothing about?
Post by: buglebrush on June 05, 2017, 10:08:33 PM
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on June 06, 2017, 08:12:32 AM
Wolves. These types of threads keep putting up by people who don't actually live in Wolf infested country, and don't know what they are taking about. It just gets tiresome. :sry:
Responses like this get tiresome as well. Where exactly is this wolf infested country you speak of? You ever even seen a track?
Post by: yakimanoob on June 06, 2017, 08:54:45 AM
Wolves. These types of threads keep putting up by people who don't actually live in Wolf infested country, and don't know what they are taking about. It just gets tiresome. :sry:You're upset about me asking a question about our collective feelings about wolves? On the forum dedicated to talking about wolves? That's odd...
Post by: Gringo31 on June 06, 2017, 08:57:44 AM
It seems these folks are upset that the time we went without wolves was a sad time. That they should have been introduced back long ago. Also seems to make sense that they should be cheering on all they can for the increase in population of Grizzly bears.
To them I say hurray for the zika virus, hurray for more ticks and lymes disease. Hurray for whatever it is that everyone knows will only reduce the populations, add stress as well as waste to the game animals we pay out of our pockets to protect and manage.......as well as harvest.
:bash:
Quote
You're upset about me asking a question about our collective feelings about wolves?
Don't play the odd card. You knew exactly what you were doing when you did it.
Post by: kentrek on June 06, 2017, 09:05:41 AM
Wolves. These types of threads keep putting up by people who don't actually live in Wolf infested country, and don't know what they are taking about. It just gets tiresome. :sry:
Responses like this get tiresome as well. Where exactly is this wolf infested country you speak of? You ever even seen a track?
I'm sure bugle brush has seen a track or two.....just because you've only heard wolves twice in 6 years doesn't mean that's how it is for everyone....last year alone in a short 4 day trip I had 4 packs/groups located...hunting elk that are getting ran by wolves sucks...period...
I think this is a good thread as long as people remain open to the thoughts of people who have been effected by the wolves, since that is what the op asked
Post by: Duckslayer89 on June 06, 2017, 09:06:46 AM
Post by: buglebrush on June 06, 2017, 09:35:29 AM
Track? :chuckle: I've seen wolves. Multiple times. Had a wolf come right into our yard and try to get our dog. Have heard them howling more times than I can remember. Been followed off the mountain when packing meat with wolves howling all around me for hours. Have been on successful Wolf hunts. Have friends who trap them. Have had my best lion hound tore to shreds by wolves. Have found where they killed a whole string of deer, and never ate a bite, because they could run on top while the deer broke through. I'm a third generation Idahoan that has lived & hunted in this area for over 30 years. And yeah I've definitely seen tracks too. :sry:Wolves. These types of threads keep putting up by people who don't actually live in Wolf infested country, and don't know what they are taking about. It just gets tiresome. :sry:
Responses like this get tiresome as well. Where exactly is this wolf infested country you speak of? You ever even seen a track?
Post by: trophyhunt on June 06, 2017, 09:46:39 AM
Boom. Mic drops!!!!Track? :chuckle: I've seen wolves. Multiple times. Had a wolf come right into our yard and try to get our dog. Have heard them howling more times than I can remember. Been followed off the mountain when packing meat with wolves howling all around me for hours. Have been on successful Wolf hunts. Have friends who trap them. Have had my best lion hound tore to shreds by wolves. Have found where they killed a whole string of deer, and never ate a bite, because they could run on top while the deer broke through. I'm a third generation Idahoan that has lived & hunted in this area for over 30 years. And yeah I've definitely seen tracks too. :sry:Wolves. These types of threads keep putting up by people who don't actually live in Wolf infested country, and don't know what they are taking about. It just gets tiresome. :sry:
Responses like this get tiresome as well. Where exactly is this wolf infested country you speak of? You ever even seen a track?
Post by: jackelope on June 06, 2017, 10:01:03 AM
Track? :chuckle: I've seen wolves. Multiple times. Had a wolf come right into our yard and try to get our dog. Have heard them howling more times than I can remember. Been followed off the mountain when packing meat with wolves howling all around me for hours. Have been on successful Wolf hunts. Have friends who trap them. Have had my best lion hound tore to shreds by wolves. Have found where they killed a whole string of deer, and never ate a bite, because they could run on top while the deer broke through. I'm a third generation Idahoan that has lived & hunted in this area for over 30 years. And yeah I've definitely seen tracks too. :sry:Wolves. These types of threads keep putting up by people who don't actually live in Wolf infested country, and don't know what they are taking about. It just gets tiresome. :sry:
Responses like this get tiresome as well. Where exactly is this wolf infested country you speak of? You ever even seen a track?
:chuckle:
It looks like he told you, elkinrut.....
Post by: DaveMonti on June 06, 2017, 10:20:16 AM
I can't wait.
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on June 06, 2017, 10:33:03 AM
Track? :chuckle: I've seen wolves. Multiple times. Had a wolf come right into our yard and try to get our dog. Have heard them howling more times than I can remember. Been followed off the mountain when packing meat with wolves howling all around me for hours. Have been on successful Wolf hunts. Have friends who trap them. Have had my best lion hound tore to shreds by wolves. Have found where they killed a whole string of deer, and never ate a bite, because they could run on top while the deer broke through. I'm a third generation Idahoan that has lived & hunted in this area for over 30 years. And yeah I've definitely seen tracks too. :sry:Wolves. These types of threads keep putting up by people who don't actually live in Wolf infested country, and don't know what they are taking about. It just gets tiresome. :sry:
Responses like this get tiresome as well. Where exactly is this wolf infested country you speak of? You ever even seen a track?
Wonderful, most guys I hear talk like you haven't even seen one. Where exactly in Idaho do you live?
Post by: KFhunter on June 06, 2017, 11:01:17 AM
Need to build a wolf/cat proof kennel.
Her hard is fenced with heavy duty wire horse fence with electric wire top and bottom, but it wouldn't keep a wolf out.
Post by: KFhunter on June 06, 2017, 11:03:27 AM
Track? :chuckle: I've seen wolves. Multiple times. Had a wolf come right into our yard and try to get our dog. Have heard them howling more times than I can remember. Been followed off the mountain when packing meat with wolves howling all around me for hours. Have been on successful Wolf hunts. Have friends who trap them. Have had my best lion hound tore to shreds by wolves. Have found where they killed a whole string of deer, and never ate a bite, because they could run on top while the deer broke through. I'm a third generation Idahoan that has lived & hunted in this area for over 30 years. And yeah I've definitely seen tracks too. :sry:Wolves. These types of threads keep putting up by people who don't actually live in Wolf infested country, and don't know what they are taking about. It just gets tiresome. :sry:
Responses like this get tiresome as well. Where exactly is this wolf infested country you speak of? You ever even seen a track?
Wonderful, most guys I hear talk like you haven't even seen one. Where exactly in Idaho do you live?
I had them on my trail for 5 straight days Elk hunting Selkirk area, but they never howled or acted aggressively towards me just followed me around and ran off the one bull I called in :bash:
Post by: dreamingbig on June 06, 2017, 11:35:09 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: ribka on June 06, 2017, 11:39:46 AM
Are you guys referring to me?I am thinking a ban from the forum is in order for you. Maybe not a lifetime ban but one that will make you think about your post questions. :chuckle:And that IS the bottom line, period! The wolf is the poster child for ANTI hunting, so if you are truly a wolf lover, think about which side your really on. Seriously , pick a side.
Why don't you try to go to an area where wolves are existent and try to harvest some game animals to eat. Those of us who actually like to hunt know that these wolf hugging groups main agenda is to do away with hunting. This can be done by propagating the wolf population in such a way that hunting will no longer be needed to keep game animals in check. So enough of the wolf in sheep's clothing front.
If so, I humbly suggest that if you think it's impossible for me to love wolves as creatures in themselves and still love/advocate/defend hunting, then I'm not the one who's causing the problem here. And neither are the wolves.
You're exposing your ignorance. For your own good please stop. I'm not going to comment about things I know nothing about, and I highly suggest you follow the same pattern.
Post by: seth30 on June 06, 2017, 11:39:59 AM
Post by: ribka on June 06, 2017, 11:42:22 AM
Track? :chuckle: I've seen wolves. Multiple times. Had a wolf come right into our yard and try to get our dog. Have heard them howling more times than I can remember. Been followed off the mountain when packing meat with wolves howling all around me for hours. Have been on successful Wolf hunts. Have friends who trap them. Have had my best lion hound tore to shreds by wolves. Have found where they killed a whole string of deer, and never ate a bite, because they could run on top while the deer broke through. I'm a third generation Idahoan that has lived & hunted in this area for over 30 years. And yeah I've definitely seen tracks too. :sry:Wolves. These types of threads keep putting up by people who don't actually live in Wolf infested country, and don't know what they are taking about. It just gets tiresome. :sry:
Responses like this get tiresome as well. Where exactly is this wolf infested country you speak of? You ever even seen a track?
:tup: :tup: :tup:
you should see the deer and elk moose killed in the winter by wolves and left to rot in the Clearwater unit and up in unit 1 up by Bonner Ferry. Both used to be some of the best elk units in the country
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 06, 2017, 11:50:57 AM
Post by: 2MANY on June 06, 2017, 11:59:42 AM
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on June 06, 2017, 12:11:35 PM
Track? :chuckle: I've seen wolves. Multiple times. Had a wolf come right into our yard and try to get our dog. Have heard them howling more times than I can remember. Been followed off the mountain when packing meat with wolves howling all around me for hours. Have been on successful Wolf hunts. Have friends who trap them. Have had my best lion hound tore to shreds by wolves. Have found where they killed a whole string of deer, and never ate a bite, because they could run on top while the deer broke through. I'm a third generation Idahoan that has lived & hunted in this area for over 30 years. And yeah I've definitely seen tracks too. :sry:Wolves. These types of threads keep putting up by people who don't actually live in Wolf infested country, and don't know what they are taking about. It just gets tiresome. :sry:
Responses like this get tiresome as well. Where exactly is this wolf infested country you speak of? You ever even seen a track?
:tup: :tup: :tup:
you should see the deer and elk moose killed in the winter by wolves and left to rot in the Clearwater unit and up in unit 1 up by Bonner Ferry. Both used to be some of the best elk units in the country
Still good units. Killed bulls in each. They don't stand in the clearings like they used to, but still bulls to be had. Lack of habitat management, crappy ifg management decisions, bad Winters and the wolves were a atomic bomb down in the Cw on that herd, but ifg is fixing that.
Post by: theleo on June 06, 2017, 12:35:23 PM
Yeah, you're missing that they are an introduced species, that they have some seriously negative impacts on rural communities, and most importantly that they are managed by folks like you that have lived in areas unaffected by them. You've seem them on TV or maybe briefly through binoculars and think they are a great and wondrous animal, but that's it. You've seen discussions here and elsewhere yet still ask what's the big deal. I'm not being mean or derogatory just pointing out the situation as bluntly as possible. You don't know what you don't know until there's an opportunity for someone to figuratively smack you on the back of the head and put your nose in the mud. It's not the animals fault, the fault lies with those who put management policies into actions that think bringing wolves back on to the scene some how makes up for our ancestors getting rid of them in the first place, while never having to suffer any ill impacts of the introduction of Grey wolves.
Wolves are beautiful and fascinating and majestic creatures. Should there be as many as there are in Washington? More? Less? I don't have the slightest clue what the answer to that question is, but I don't hate the creatures themselves, and I have a hard time understanding why so many people seem to.
Am I missing something?
Post by: jackelope on June 06, 2017, 12:43:30 PM
Yeah, you're missing that they are an introduced species, that they have some seriously negative impacts on rural communities, and most importantly that they are managed by folks like you that have lived in areas unaffected by them. You've seem them on TV or maybe briefly through binoculars and think they are a great and wondrous animal, but that's it. You've seen discussions here and elsewhere yet still ask what's the big deal. I'm not being mean or derogatory just pointing out the situation as bluntly as possible. You don't know what you don't know until there's an opportunity for someone to figuratively smack you on the back of the head and put your nose in the mud. It's not the animals fault, the fault lies with those who put management policies into actions that think bringing wolves back on to the scene some how makes up for our ancestors getting rid of them in the first place, while never having to suffer any ill impacts of the introduction of Grey wolves.
Wolves are beautiful and fascinating and majestic creatures. Should there be as many as there are in Washington? More? Less? I don't have the slightest clue what the answer to that question is, but I don't hate the creatures themselves, and I have a hard time understanding why so many people seem to.
Am I missing something?
He's from almost the same place as you.
:dunno:
Post by: gaddy on June 06, 2017, 12:49:08 PM
Post by: bearpaw on June 06, 2017, 12:55:04 PM
For me, the lack of management is a bigger concern than the actual wolves. Idaho is managing wolves and elk herds and even some moose herds that were significantly impacted are coming back, I even purchased a new hunting business in an area that had been impacted by wolves that is now coming back. I don't have an issue with a managed population of wolves.
The Washington wolf plan is a total joke! And to top that off, I don't see management ever happening in WA due to too many predator lovers in this state who will simply run an initiative if WDFW ever does try to manage wolves! :bash:
Post by: bearpaw on June 06, 2017, 12:59:38 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 06, 2017, 01:26:59 PM
only the last 2 years. Said he comes from Alabama. Wolves in Alabama ?
One's from Naches, the other from Kennewick.
:dunno:
Post by: theleo on June 06, 2017, 01:27:52 PM
Grew up in eastern Oregon, graduated from Cove high school 2005. Hunted north of Wallowa most of the time above the breaks of the Grand Ronde (from our camp I could hike down to where the Wallowa meets the Grande Ronde). Still kick around in the Wallowa and Eagle Cap mountains whenever possible. I hunt mainly SE Idaho (Pioneer zone) where my mothers side of the family is from (Carey Idaho) and have a family friend that's an outfitter there (Little Wood River Outfitters) that has been in business since the early-mid 80's. I'm not new to interacting with deer, elk, bears, antelope, moose, and packing mules.Yeah, you're missing that they are an introduced species, that they have some seriously negative impacts on rural communities, and most importantly that they are managed by folks like you that have lived in areas unaffected by them. You've seem them on TV or maybe briefly through binoculars and think they are a great and wondrous animal, but that's it. You've seen discussions here and elsewhere yet still ask what's the big deal. I'm not being mean or derogatory just pointing out the situation as bluntly as possible. You don't know what you don't know until there's an opportunity for someone to figuratively smack you on the back of the head and put your nose in the mud. It's not the animals fault, the fault lies with those who put management policies into actions that think bringing wolves back on to the scene some how makes up for our ancestors getting rid of them in the first place, while never having to suffer any ill impacts of the introduction of Grey wolves.
Wolves are beautiful and fascinating and majestic creatures. Should there be as many as there are in Washington? More? Less? I don't have the slightest clue what the answer to that question is, but I don't hate the creatures themselves, and I have a hard time understanding why so many people seem to.
Am I missing something?
He's from almost the same place as you.
:dunno:
From a guy who normally puts out some pretty good posts, saying I'm from nearly the same place as an Alabama whitetail hunter is one of the stupidest things I've seen you post jackelope, let alone any other moderator on here.
Post by: jackelope on June 06, 2017, 01:42:39 PM
Grew up in eastern Oregon, graduated from Cove high school 2005. Hunted north of Wallowa most of the time above the breaks of the Grand Ronde (from our camp I could hike down to where the Wallowa meets the Grande Ronde). Still kick around in the Wallowa and Eagle Cap mountains whenever possible. I hunt mainly SE Idaho (Pioneer zone) where my mothers side of the family is from (Carey Idaho) and have a family friend that's an outfitter there (Little Wood River Outfitters) that has been in business since the early-mid 80's. I'm not new to interacting with deer, elk, bears, antelope, moose, and packing mules.Yeah, you're missing that they are an introduced species, that they have some seriously negative impacts on rural communities, and most importantly that they are managed by folks like you that have lived in areas unaffected by them. You've seem them on TV or maybe briefly through binoculars and think they are a great and wondrous animal, but that's it. You've seen discussions here and elsewhere yet still ask what's the big deal. I'm not being mean or derogatory just pointing out the situation as bluntly as possible. You don't know what you don't know until there's an opportunity for someone to figuratively smack you on the back of the head and put your nose in the mud. It's not the animals fault, the fault lies with those who put management policies into actions that think bringing wolves back on to the scene some how makes up for our ancestors getting rid of them in the first place, while never having to suffer any ill impacts of the introduction of Grey wolves.
Wolves are beautiful and fascinating and majestic creatures. Should there be as many as there are in Washington? More? Less? I don't have the slightest clue what the answer to that question is, but I don't hate the creatures themselves, and I have a hard time understanding why so many people seem to.
Am I missing something?
He's from almost the same place as you.
:dunno:
From a guy who normally puts out some pretty good posts, saying I'm from nearly the same place as an Alabama whitetail hunter is one of the stupidest things I've seen you post jackelope, let alone any other moderator on here.
:tup:
Sorry to let you down. I should have read the whole post. I was just looking at profile locations.
Post by: cbond3318 on June 06, 2017, 01:48:24 PM
Grew up in eastern Oregon, graduated from Cove high school 2005. Hunted north of Wallowa most of the time above the breaks of the Grand Ronde (from our camp I could hike down to where the Wallowa meets the Grande Ronde). Still kick around in the Wallowa and Eagle Cap mountains whenever possible. I hunt mainly SE Idaho (Pioneer zone) where my mothers side of the family is from (Carey Idaho) and have a family friend that's an outfitter there (Little Wood River Outfitters) that has been in business since the early-mid 80's. I'm not new to interacting with deer, elk, bears, antelope, moose, and packing mules.Yeah, you're missing that they are an introduced species, that they have some seriously negative impacts on rural communities, and most importantly that they are managed by folks like you that have lived in areas unaffected by them. You've seem them on TV or maybe briefly through binoculars and think they are a great and wondrous animal, but that's it. You've seen discussions here and elsewhere yet still ask what's the big deal. I'm not being mean or derogatory just pointing out the situation as bluntly as possible. You don't know what you don't know until there's an opportunity for someone to figuratively smack you on the back of the head and put your nose in the mud. It's not the animals fault, the fault lies with those who put management policies into actions that think bringing wolves back on to the scene some how makes up for our ancestors getting rid of them in the first place, while never having to suffer any ill impacts of the introduction of Grey wolves.
Wolves are beautiful and fascinating and majestic creatures. Should there be as many as there are in Washington? More? Less? I don't have the slightest clue what the answer to that question is, but I don't hate the creatures themselves, and I have a hard time understanding why so many people seem to.
Am I missing something?
He's from almost the same place as you.
:dunno:
From a guy who normally puts out some pretty good posts, saying I'm from nearly the same place as an Alabama whitetail hunter is one of the stupidest things I've seen you post jackelope, let alone any other moderator on here.
:chuckle:
Looks like he told you Jack....
Post by: buglebrush on June 06, 2017, 02:10:36 PM
Panhandle.Track? :chuckle: I've seen wolves. Multiple times. Had a wolf come right into our yard and try to get our dog. Have heard them howling more times than I can remember. Been followed off the mountain when packing meat with wolves howling all around me for hours. Have been on successful Wolf hunts. Have friends who trap them. Have had my best lion hound tore to shreds by wolves. Have found where they killed a whole string of deer, and never ate a bite, because they could run on top while the deer broke through. I'm a third generation Idahoan that has lived & hunted in this area for over 30 years. And yeah I've definitely seen tracks too. :sry:Wolves. These types of threads keep putting up by people who don't actually live in Wolf infested country, and don't know what they are taking about. It just gets tiresome. :sry:
Responses like this get tiresome as well. Where exactly is this wolf infested country you speak of? You ever even seen a track?
Wonderful, most guys I hear talk like you haven't even seen one. Where exactly in Idaho do you live?
Post by: jackelope on June 06, 2017, 02:28:42 PM
Grew up in eastern Oregon, graduated from Cove high school 2005. Hunted north of Wallowa most of the time above the breaks of the Grand Ronde (from our camp I could hike down to where the Wallowa meets the Grande Ronde). Still kick around in the Wallowa and Eagle Cap mountains whenever possible. I hunt mainly SE Idaho (Pioneer zone) where my mothers side of the family is from (Carey Idaho) and have a family friend that's an outfitter there (Little Wood River Outfitters) that has been in business since the early-mid 80's. I'm not new to interacting with deer, elk, bears, antelope, moose, and packing mules.Yeah, you're missing that they are an introduced species, that they have some seriously negative impacts on rural communities, and most importantly that they are managed by folks like you that have lived in areas unaffected by them. You've seem them on TV or maybe briefly through binoculars and think they are a great and wondrous animal, but that's it. You've seen discussions here and elsewhere yet still ask what's the big deal. I'm not being mean or derogatory just pointing out the situation as bluntly as possible. You don't know what you don't know until there's an opportunity for someone to figuratively smack you on the back of the head and put your nose in the mud. It's not the animals fault, the fault lies with those who put management policies into actions that think bringing wolves back on to the scene some how makes up for our ancestors getting rid of them in the first place, while never having to suffer any ill impacts of the introduction of Grey wolves.
Wolves are beautiful and fascinating and majestic creatures. Should there be as many as there are in Washington? More? Less? I don't have the slightest clue what the answer to that question is, but I don't hate the creatures themselves, and I have a hard time understanding why so many people seem to.
Am I missing something?
He's from almost the same place as you.
:dunno:
From a guy who normally puts out some pretty good posts, saying I'm from nearly the same place as an Alabama whitetail hunter is one of the stupidest things I've seen you post jackelope, let alone any other moderator on here.
:chuckle:
Looks like he told you Jack....
Sho nuff.
Post by: jackelope on June 06, 2017, 02:47:46 PM
Grew up in eastern Oregon, graduated from Cove high school 2005. Hunted north of Wallowa most of the time above the breaks of the Grand Ronde (from our camp I could hike down to where the Wallowa meets the Grande Ronde). Still kick around in the Wallowa and Eagle Cap mountains whenever possible. I hunt mainly SE Idaho (Pioneer zone) where my mothers side of the family is from (Carey Idaho) and have a family friend that's an outfitter there (Little Wood River Outfitters) that has been in business since the early-mid 80's. I'm not new to interacting with deer, elk, bears, antelope, moose, and packing mules.Yeah, you're missing that they are an introduced species, that they have some seriously negative impacts on rural communities, and most importantly that they are managed by folks like you that have lived in areas unaffected by them. You've seem them on TV or maybe briefly through binoculars and think they are a great and wondrous animal, but that's it. You've seen discussions here and elsewhere yet still ask what's the big deal. I'm not being mean or derogatory just pointing out the situation as bluntly as possible. You don't know what you don't know until there's an opportunity for someone to figuratively smack you on the back of the head and put your nose in the mud. It's not the animals fault, the fault lies with those who put management policies into actions that think bringing wolves back on to the scene some how makes up for our ancestors getting rid of them in the first place, while never having to suffer any ill impacts of the introduction of Grey wolves.
Wolves are beautiful and fascinating and majestic creatures. Should there be as many as there are in Washington? More? Less? I don't have the slightest clue what the answer to that question is, but I don't hate the creatures themselves, and I have a hard time understanding why so many people seem to.
Am I missing something?
He's from almost the same place as you.
:dunno:
From a guy who normally puts out some pretty good posts, saying I'm from nearly the same place as an Alabama whitetail hunter is one of the stupidest things I've seen you post jackelope, let alone any other moderator on here.
I maintain, however, that it will forever drive me bonkers that it seems that someone's knowledge is purely, or at least mostly based on where they're from. I think I have a fairly good working knowledge of the outdoors, animals, wildlife, etc. I can hang with the everyday Joe in outdoor related conversations. I know enough about wolves, mule deer, elk, whitetail, fishing, to carry on a solid conversation with pretty much anyone. I'm from New York. New frikkin York. I see folks flipping westsiders crap all the time for not knowing what they're talking about. I've taken a bunch of crap on here for being a westsider, and I'm not even a westsider. I grew up in the Catskills out in the country in upstate NY. I caught trout on my own property. I killed deer there. I still own land there. They have no clue where I'm from, how I grew up and what I know. So maybe it's not best to judge someone based on where they're from....which was the intent of my inaccurate comment.
Post by: bearpaw on June 06, 2017, 03:19:03 PM
Grew up in eastern Oregon, graduated from Cove high school 2005. Hunted north of Wallowa most of the time above the breaks of the Grand Ronde (from our camp I could hike down to where the Wallowa meets the Grande Ronde). Still kick around in the Wallowa and Eagle Cap mountains whenever possible. I hunt mainly SE Idaho (Pioneer zone) where my mothers side of the family is from (Carey Idaho) and have a family friend that's an outfitter there (Little Wood River Outfitters) that has been in business since the early-mid 80's. I'm not new to interacting with deer, elk, bears, antelope, moose, and packing mules.Yeah, you're missing that they are an introduced species, that they have some seriously negative impacts on rural communities, and most importantly that they are managed by folks like you that have lived in areas unaffected by them. You've seem them on TV or maybe briefly through binoculars and think they are a great and wondrous animal, but that's it. You've seen discussions here and elsewhere yet still ask what's the big deal. I'm not being mean or derogatory just pointing out the situation as bluntly as possible. You don't know what you don't know until there's an opportunity for someone to figuratively smack you on the back of the head and put your nose in the mud. It's not the animals fault, the fault lies with those who put management policies into actions that think bringing wolves back on to the scene some how makes up for our ancestors getting rid of them in the first place, while never having to suffer any ill impacts of the introduction of Grey wolves.
Wolves are beautiful and fascinating and majestic creatures. Should there be as many as there are in Washington? More? Less? I don't have the slightest clue what the answer to that question is, but I don't hate the creatures themselves, and I have a hard time understanding why so many people seem to.
Am I missing something?
He's from almost the same place as you.
:dunno:
From a guy who normally puts out some pretty good posts, saying I'm from nearly the same place as an Alabama whitetail hunter is one of the stupidest things I've seen you post jackelope, let alone any other moderator on here.
I maintain, however, that it will forever drive me bonkers that it seems that someone's knowledge is purely, or at least mostly based on where they're from. I think I have a fairly good working knowledge of the outdoors, animals, wildlife, etc. I can hang with the everyday Joe in outdoor related conversations. I know enough about wolves, mule deer, elk, whitetail, fishing, to carry on a solid conversation with pretty much anyone. I'm from New York. New frikkin York. I see folks flipping westsiders crap all the time for not knowing what they're talking about. I've taken a bunch of crap on here for being a westsider, and I'm not even a westsider. I grew up in the Catskills out in the country in upstate NY. I caught trout on my own property. I killed deer there. I still own land there. They have no clue where I'm from, how I grew up and what I know. So maybe it's not best to judge someone based on where they're from....which was the intent of my inaccurate comment.
tell us how you really feel :chuckle: (joke)
Post by: theleo on June 06, 2017, 03:28:50 PM
Fair enough but I judged the OP on the fact that he was admittedly new to the interactions with western species and the somewhat romanticized view he has of wolves.Grew up in eastern Oregon, graduated from Cove high school 2005. Hunted north of Wallowa most of the time above the breaks of the Grand Ronde (from our camp I could hike down to where the Wallowa meets the Grande Ronde). Still kick around in the Wallowa and Eagle Cap mountains whenever possible. I hunt mainly SE Idaho (Pioneer zone) where my mothers side of the family is from (Carey Idaho) and have a family friend that's an outfitter there (Little Wood River Outfitters) that has been in business since the early-mid 80's. I'm not new to interacting with deer, elk, bears, antelope, moose, and packing mules.Yeah, you're missing that they are an introduced species, that they have some seriously negative impacts on rural communities, and most importantly that they are managed by folks like you that have lived in areas unaffected by them. You've seem them on TV or maybe briefly through binoculars and think they are a great and wondrous animal, but that's it. You've seen discussions here and elsewhere yet still ask what's the big deal. I'm not being mean or derogatory just pointing out the situation as bluntly as possible. You don't know what you don't know until there's an opportunity for someone to figuratively smack you on the back of the head and put your nose in the mud. It's not the animals fault, the fault lies with those who put management policies into actions that think bringing wolves back on to the scene some how makes up for our ancestors getting rid of them in the first place, while never having to suffer any ill impacts of the introduction of Grey wolves.
Wolves are beautiful and fascinating and majestic creatures. Should there be as many as there are in Washington? More? Less? I don't have the slightest clue what the answer to that question is, but I don't hate the creatures themselves, and I have a hard time understanding why so many people seem to.
Am I missing something?
He's from almost the same place as you.
:dunno:
From a guy who normally puts out some pretty good posts, saying I'm from nearly the same place as an Alabama whitetail hunter is one of the stupidest things I've seen you post jackelope, let alone any other moderator on here.
I maintain, however, that it will forever drive me bonkers that it seems that someone's knowledge is purely, or at least mostly based on where they're from. I think I have a fairly good working knowledge of the outdoors, animals, wildlife, etc. I can hang with the everyday Joe in outdoor related conversations. I know enough about wolves, mule deer, elk, whitetail, fishing, to carry on a solid conversation with pretty much anyone. I'm from New York. New frikkin York. I see folks flipping westsiders crap all the time for not knowing what they're talking about. I've taken a bunch of crap on here for being a westsider, and I'm not even a westsider. I grew up in the Catskills out in the country in upstate NY. I caught trout on my own property. I killed deer there. I still own land there. They have no clue where I'm from, how I grew up and what I know. So maybe it's not best to judge someone based on where they're from....which was the intent of my inaccurate comment.
I'll make note not to pick on you for being from the wetside or the state Hillary calls home. Instead I'll defer to your wisdom as someone who rode in a Studebaker to make it to the west coast, back when Studebaker first opened their doors.
Post by: jackelope on June 06, 2017, 04:09:07 PM
Fair enough but I judged the OP on the fact that he was admittedly new to the interactions with western species and the somewhat romanticized view he has of wolves.Grew up in eastern Oregon, graduated from Cove high school 2005. Hunted north of Wallowa most of the time above the breaks of the Grand Ronde (from our camp I could hike down to where the Wallowa meets the Grande Ronde). Still kick around in the Wallowa and Eagle Cap mountains whenever possible. I hunt mainly SE Idaho (Pioneer zone) where my mothers side of the family is from (Carey Idaho) and have a family friend that's an outfitter there (Little Wood River Outfitters) that has been in business since the early-mid 80's. I'm not new to interacting with deer, elk, bears, antelope, moose, and packing mules.Yeah, you're missing that they are an introduced species, that they have some seriously negative impacts on rural communities, and most importantly that they are managed by folks like you that have lived in areas unaffected by them. You've seem them on TV or maybe briefly through binoculars and think they are a great and wondrous animal, but that's it. You've seen discussions here and elsewhere yet still ask what's the big deal. I'm not being mean or derogatory just pointing out the situation as bluntly as possible. You don't know what you don't know until there's an opportunity for someone to figuratively smack you on the back of the head and put your nose in the mud. It's not the animals fault, the fault lies with those who put management policies into actions that think bringing wolves back on to the scene some how makes up for our ancestors getting rid of them in the first place, while never having to suffer any ill impacts of the introduction of Grey wolves.
Wolves are beautiful and fascinating and majestic creatures. Should there be as many as there are in Washington? More? Less? I don't have the slightest clue what the answer to that question is, but I don't hate the creatures themselves, and I have a hard time understanding why so many people seem to.
Am I missing something?
He's from almost the same place as you.
:dunno:
From a guy who normally puts out some pretty good posts, saying I'm from nearly the same place as an Alabama whitetail hunter is one of the stupidest things I've seen you post jackelope, let alone any other moderator on here.
I maintain, however, that it will forever drive me bonkers that it seems that someone's knowledge is purely, or at least mostly based on where they're from. I think I have a fairly good working knowledge of the outdoors, animals, wildlife, etc. I can hang with the everyday Joe in outdoor related conversations. I know enough about wolves, mule deer, elk, whitetail, fishing, to carry on a solid conversation with pretty much anyone. I'm from New York. New frikkin York. I see folks flipping westsiders crap all the time for not knowing what they're talking about. I've taken a bunch of crap on here for being a westsider, and I'm not even a westsider. I grew up in the Catskills out in the country in upstate NY. I caught trout on my own property. I killed deer there. I still own land there. They have no clue where I'm from, how I grew up and what I know. So maybe it's not best to judge someone based on where they're from....which was the intent of my inaccurate comment.
I'll make note not to pick on you for being from the wetside or the state Hillary calls home. Instead I'll defer to your wisdom as someone who rode in a Studebaker to make it to the west coast, back when Studebaker first opened their doors.
Yeah I don't have good genetics geographically. I moved out here long after the Studebaker was a thing. 1997 to be exact. Just passed my 20 year westside anniversary in fact.
Post by: yakimanoob on June 06, 2017, 06:13:08 PM
I have not once, here or anywhere, advocated for more wolves, or argued that Washington should have re-introduced them, or that WDFW is doing a good job of management, or made any other statements implying a "pro-wolf" stance other than that they are amazing creatures. Pigs are amazing creatures. I greatly appreciate that they exist and find them fascinating. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't happily shoot one on sight, and I pray I never get the chance at a feral hog in Washington. Their presence here would be destructive, and I hope Washington never has to grapple with them like Alabama has to. But that doesn't make me hate them. If they were cuter and looked more like the creatures that I keep as pets, I'd probably like them and maybe even love them. But it wouldn't change my opinion of whether or not we should release a bunch of them into the wilderness.
In fact, I specifically stated that I know nothing about the topic of wolves in an attempt to clarify that I wasn't trying to state or comment on anything. To do so would obviously be talking out of my arse, and I have therefore avoided it.
What confuses me is that people like skyvalhunter, theleo, buglebrush, and gringo seem to have assumed that I have some kind of pro-wolf agenda and are mad about it. A wolf in sheep's clothing? Banned from the forum? Needing to be smacked upside the head and have my nose shoved in the mud?
If you guys can't take honest questions without jumping to the conclusion that I'm an anti-hunting leftie who's here to troll you, then I maintain that you are part of the problem. If you can't participate in reasonable discourse, what hope do you have of convincing anyone, much less those in government, that they should listen to your policy ideas? Alienating those who ask questions is a sure-fire way of eliminating any chance you may have had at gaining the political momentum you need to change things.
This kind of caustic flame-throwing does more to damage the cause of hunters than asking questions about why people hate wolves, in my opinion.
Post by: yakimanoob on June 06, 2017, 06:16:04 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 06, 2017, 06:56:33 PM
Post by: KFhunter on June 06, 2017, 08:49:52 PM
Gents, I honestly have no idea why I'm getting so much flack for the questions I've asked. They were asked with honest curiosity in mind, nothing more.
I have not once, here or anywhere, advocated for more wolves, or argued that Washington should have re-introduced them, or that WDFW is doing a good job of management, or made any other statements implying a "pro-wolf" stance other than that they are amazing creatures. Pigs are amazing creatures. I greatly appreciate that they exist and find them fascinating. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't happily shoot one on sight, and I pray I never get the chance at a feral hog in Washington. Their presence here would be destructive, and I hope Washington never has to grapple with them like Alabama has to. But that doesn't make me hate them. If they were cuter and looked more like the creatures that I keep as pets, I'd probably like them and maybe even love them. But it wouldn't change my opinion of whether or not we should release a bunch of them into the wilderness.
In fact, I specifically stated that I know nothing about the topic of wolves in an attempt to clarify that I wasn't trying to state or comment on anything. To do so would obviously be talking out of my arse, and I have therefore avoided it.
What confuses me is that people like skyvalhunter, theleo, buglebrush, and gringo seem to have assumed that I have some kind of pro-wolf agenda and are mad about it. A wolf in sheep's clothing? Banned from the forum? Needing to be smacked upside the head and have my nose shoved in the mud?
If you guys can't take honest questions without jumping to the conclusion that I'm an anti-hunting leftie who's here to troll you, then I maintain that you are part of the problem. If you can't participate in reasonable discourse, what hope do you have of convincing anyone, much less those in government, that they should listen to your policy ideas? Alienating those who ask questions is a sure-fire way of eliminating any chance you may have had at gaining the political momentum you need to change things.
This kind of caustic flame-throwing does more to damage the cause of hunters than asking questions about why people hate wolves, in my opinion.
We've had undercover wolf advocates on the forum before, and had to remove them from the forum when it was painfully clear that their whole purpose was to push the wolf agenda.
I do appreciate your honest effort at learning more about wolves, like any internet forum though you need to weed through the chaff and find the nuggets of wisdom. There's a ton of wisdom and knowledge on this forum.
and yes, they are amazing animals and I don't wish to see them exterminated. I want wolves and all the other predators kept in check by intensive management, not managed by food availability because then there won't be much left for us!
Post by: buglebrush on June 06, 2017, 09:37:14 PM
:yeah:Gents, I honestly have no idea why I'm getting so much flack for the questions I've asked. They were asked with honest curiosity in mind, nothing more.
I have not once, here or anywhere, advocated for more wolves, or argued that Washington should have re-introduced them, or that WDFW is doing a good job of management, or made any other statements implying a "pro-wolf" stance other than that they are amazing creatures. Pigs are amazing creatures. I greatly appreciate that they exist and find them fascinating. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't happily shoot one on sight, and I pray I never get the chance at a feral hog in Washington. Their presence here would be destructive, and I hope Washington never has to grapple with them like Alabama has to. But that doesn't make me hate them. If they were cuter and looked more like the creatures that I keep as pets, I'd probably like them and maybe even love them. But it wouldn't change my opinion of whether or not we should release a bunch of them into the wilderness.
In fact, I specifically stated that I know nothing about the topic of wolves in an attempt to clarify that I wasn't trying to state or comment on anything. To do so would obviously be talking out of my arse, and I have therefore avoided it.
What confuses me is that people like skyvalhunter, theleo, buglebrush, and gringo seem to have assumed that I have some kind of pro-wolf agenda and are mad about it. A wolf in sheep's clothing? Banned from the forum? Needing to be smacked upside the head and have my nose shoved in the mud?
If you guys can't take honest questions without jumping to the conclusion that I'm an anti-hunting leftie who's here to troll you, then I maintain that you are part of the problem. If you can't participate in reasonable discourse, what hope do you have of convincing anyone, much less those in government, that they should listen to your policy ideas? Alienating those who ask questions is a sure-fire way of eliminating any chance you may have had at gaining the political momentum you need to change things.
This kind of caustic flame-throwing does more to damage the cause of hunters than asking questions about why people hate wolves, in my opinion.
We've had undercover wolf advocates on the forum before, and had to remove them from the forum when it was painfully clear that their whole purpose was to push the wolf agenda.
I do appreciate your honest effort at learning more about wolves, like any internet forum though you need to weed through the chaff and find the nuggets of wisdom. There's a ton of wisdom and knowledge on this forum.
and yes, they are amazing animals and I don't wish to see them exterminated. I want wolves and all the other predators kept in check by intensive management, not managed by food availability because then there won't be much left for us!
Post by: theleo on June 06, 2017, 10:05:29 PM
Gents, I honestly have no idea why I'm getting so much flack for the questions I've asked. They were asked with honest curiosity in mind, nothing more.The way that you posed the question "what's the big deal" about the issue is the reason for the flak. Similar to me knowing nothing about heroine and talking to a community saying people should be able to do what they want and makes them feel good, so what's the big deal?
I have not once, here or anywhere, advocated for more wolves, or argued that Washington should have re-introduced them, or that WDFW is doing a good job of management, or made any other statements implying a "pro-wolf" stance other than that they are amazing creatures. Pigs are amazing creatures. I greatly appreciate that they exist and find them fascinating. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't happily shoot one on sight, and I pray I never get the chance at a feral hog in Washington. Their presence here would be destructive, and I hope Washington never has to grapple with them like Alabama has to. But that doesn't make me hate them. If they were cuter and looked more like the creatures that I keep as pets, I'd probably like them and maybe even love them. But it wouldn't change my opinion of whether or not we should release a bunch of them into the wilderness.
In fact, I specifically stated that I know nothing about the topic of wolves in an attempt to clarify that I wasn't trying to state or comment on anything. To do so would obviously be talking out of my arse, and I have therefore avoided it.
What confuses me is that people like skyvalhunter, theleo, buglebrush, and gringo seem to have assumed that I have some kind of pro-wolf agenda and are mad about it. A wolf in sheep's clothing? Banned from the forum? Needing to be smacked upside the head and have my nose shoved in the mud?
If you guys can't take honest questions without jumping to the conclusion that I'm an anti-hunting leftie who's here to troll you, then I maintain that you are part of the problem. If you can't participate in reasonable discourse, what hope do you have of convincing anyone, much less those in government, that they should listen to your policy ideas? Alienating those who ask questions is a sure-fire way of eliminating any chance you may have had at gaining the political momentum you need to change things.
This kind of caustic flame-throwing does more to damage the cause of hunters than asking questions about why people hate wolves, in my opinion.
Contrary to jackelope's genralization (he's doing that a lot today) I have complete respect for whitetail hunters. My referencing you as an Alabama whitetail hunter was referencing that the background I'm from is extremely different than yours. Not better or worse, but extremely different.
If you think I gave you flak, I wouldn't start the conversation the same way in a central Idaho bar. My bluntness will seem like bright and cheery banter compared to the response you'd get there.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Post by: Gringo31 on June 07, 2017, 09:21:24 AM
I'll take a stab at this.
I question your sincerity. You're last post makes it sound like you are just wanting information or at least you are looking to have an HONEST discussion. Here is why I question your motives (I'll add, like others have said, we've dealt with people in the past just looking to stir the pot, they throw a match and then sit back and watch with little replies, except to ask why the fuss). It is possible you are focused on drawing the line between whether or not wolves are "hated" because of what they do or because they are a wolf? It's odd....
You contradict yourself over and over and I'll point out some highlights to make my point.
You've said....
Quote
I do have an honest question. Why all the hatred of wolves?
Quote
I get thinking that wolves in Washington are mismanaged. I get thinking they're overpopulated.
Quote
Should there be as many as there are in Washington? More? Less? I don't have the slightest clue what the answer to that question is,
But then you say...
Quote
I wasn't exactly looking for a debate
Quote
I'm not the one who's causing the problem here. And neither are the wolves.
You started off with saying you love wolves, "Seriously"... then post
Quote
OK, that's an admittedly click-baity subject lineand follow up later with
Quote
I honestly have no idea why I'm getting so much flack for the questions I've asked
You knew what you were doing (like I said) when you did it. And...just to jab you, my favorite contradiction is ...
Quote
What confuses me is that people like skyvalhunter, theleo, buglebrush, and gringo seem to have assumed that I have some kind of pro-wolf agenda and are mad about it.
Quote
On the flip side, thanks to bearpaw, wapititalk, idahohuntr, ghosthunter, gringo, kentrek, pianoman, and the many others who took the time to answer my question thoughtfully.:chuckle:
Post by: yakimanoob on June 07, 2017, 09:43:13 AM
@ yakimanoobI think I'm starting to understand your reactions. Gringo, if I was getting flack for the subject line, I wouldn't be confused. I'm not above phrasing things in a way meant to grab people's attention. The first and second "contradictions" on your list don't seem like contradictions to me, and there were quite a number of folks who seems to have understood my intent and answered honestly. Which leads me to you:
I'll take a stab at this.
I question your sincerity. You're last post makes it sound like you are just wanting information or at least you are looking to have an HONEST discussion. Here is why I question your motives (I'll add, like others have said, we've dealt with people in the past just looking to stir the pot, they throw a match and then sit back and watch with little replies, except to ask why the fuss). It is possible you are focused on drawing the line between whether or not wolves are "hated" because of what they do or because they are a wolf? It's odd....
You contradict yourself over and over and I'll point out some highlights to make my point.
I didn't contradict myself by listing you in both places, and the irony wasn't accidental. In your first post, you answered my question thoughtfully and I appreciated your response, but then later you joined the chorus of voices calling me disingenuous and wanting me to stop.
I apologize if anything I said was confusing or misleading. My intent was to hear people's thoughts in exactly the way you first answered my question, as did several others.
Post by: Gringo31 on June 07, 2017, 10:08:17 AM
It's not like it's a hard question to answer. IF indeed you were curious why people feel the way they do, a little research would answer that question. You think pigs are amazing and fascinating. OK....... but you can understand why they shouldn't be here.
IF I screamed from the mountain tops that pigs need to be in all 50 states because they are amazing and fascinating animals, AND they were brought here and people were upset about and hated them............would I need to ask why they were upset or why they hate pigs?
In some ways, it is no different. Wolves are an issue in Alaska/Canada/Russia etc. They do what wolves do. That doesn't mean our money should be spent on having them here. When real dollars are spent to cost what many of us see as opportunity or at least as a drain on our beloved natural resources.....people are passionate about it.
I suppose after all of this I still don't understand what you are really after. :dunno:
Post by: Gringo31 on June 07, 2017, 10:09:24 AM
Go talk to the folks down south and ask them why they "hate" pigs.
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on June 07, 2017, 02:12:08 PM
If your intent is sincere then I can appreciate the topic. Personally, I find it hard to beleive that you had no idea of the negative emotion this subject stirs within the hunter user group. So either your incredibly naive with your title in which case you have recieved education. Or your simply trying to stir the pot. If you had wanted to start a wolf discussion for the purpose of educating yourself you could have simply said, No experience with wolves. Please help. Or Why are Wolves Bad for hunters? And your responses likely would have been far less inflammatory.
For me I have tried to curb the use of the words Hatred or Love in my wolf discussions, as they are both emotional words. And I beleive emotion has little place in the science of game management. I don't "hate" wolves anymore than I "love" them. They simply are. However I do rank game animal on a scale of worth Both personal and collective. To me the wolf is right there with the housefly maybe slightly above. I have seen them, They look like mangy dogs, not the picture of power and grace photos often depict. I have heard them, they did not stir my soul the way a bull elk bugle does. A pack of wolves is a formadible force, but remove the wolf from the pack and it suddenly pales in comparison to many other predators out there. If they were extinct, life would be easier, and I would miss nothing. If they are here and I can deal with them in any manner I see fit, they are a hassle and irritation but I learn to deal with it. But when they are impacting my life and someone says you can not use fly strips, fly baits, fly swatters, fly treatments, fly traps, or arial fly gunning at all. Or in some cases you can use fly swatters, but no baits or traps. Well then I feel like those individuals are overstepping their bounds and that will stir an emotional response as irritation gives way to anger and anger turns to hatred. Throw in losses as described in this thread and its easy to see why emotions run high.
Post by: wolfbait on June 07, 2017, 07:44:23 PM
The biggest problem with the illegal wolf introduction is the lack of wolf control. If states were managing their game herds then there would be strict wolf, predator control. And if ranchers etc. were allowed to shoot wolves that were killing their livestock, there would be less backlash.
Ranchers who lose livestock do to wolves and have no recourse don't have the same feeling for wolves as the city dweller. The same goes for hunters etc. who see the senseless slaughter that wolves leave behind them.
The cow in the picture below had a new calf on her when the wolves killed her, the USFWS and WDFW ran to the papers and claimed there was no way they could tell what killed the cow, they failed to even mention the new calf.
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on June 08, 2017, 05:01:58 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 08, 2017, 05:06:07 AM
Post by: jackelope on June 08, 2017, 07:33:58 AM
The moose looks like it is being eaten alive...Gotta love those wolves
Likely every wolf in that picture is now dead.
Post by: Duckslayer89 on June 08, 2017, 07:36:48 AM
The moose looks like it is being eaten alive...Gotta love those wolves
Likely every wolf in that picture is now dead.
And every moose in pic as well
Post by: jackelope on June 08, 2017, 08:03:09 AM
The moose looks like it is being eaten alive...Gotta love those wolves
Likely every wolf in that picture is now dead.
And every moose in pic as well
Actually the moose population has rebounded exponentially, and all but 2 of the wolves on the island are dead as of this past winter.
(That's an old photo from Isle Royale on Lake Superior)
http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/sites/default/files/annual-report-pdf/Annual%20Report%202016-2017_0.pdf
Post by: trophyhunt on June 08, 2017, 08:20:39 AM
Post by: WI to WA on June 08, 2017, 08:53:32 AM
I have lived with wolves, been followed by them (both with and without meat on my shoulder), have scared them much more than I have been scared by them, and have watched them both while hunting and hiking in Wisconsin. I have seen their effect on deer numbers in Northern Wisconsin and applaud their subtle management.
The only issue I have with this discussion is the assertion that they are bad because they are “invasive.” If you use that argument for wolves it should be used for other invasive species. For example, use the same argument for the overabundance of “slow elk.” Cattle are ridiculously overpopulated on our public lands; they are invasive in the truest sense as they do not occur naturally -- anywhere. They do not belong on public land; feed lots are great. Keeping our public lands rich in vegetation is important to our game animals; cattle destroy this. I have come upon too many herds of burgers eating the vegetation that could be used to further support elk. I have talked with cattlemen who believe they own our public lands because their meal ticket eats there. If the argument was actually about wolves being invasive the same should apply to cattle. As hunters and lovers of wild game on our tables, we should be arguing against any invasive animal that takes resources away from what we live to pursue.
I am not actually arguing against grazing on public lands (even though I hate cattle) but the argument can be applied to both wolves and cattle. The only difference is that wolves have actually lived here before people; cows didn’t live anywhere.
Post by: KFhunter on June 08, 2017, 09:15:16 AM
I hate to jump too far into this debate as there does not seem to be room to disagree with the “wolves don’t belong” crowd. Those of us who don’t mind wolves sharing our forests are categorized as wrong and are pigeonholed as crazy environmentalists. Hunters can be environmentalists and I would argue that hunters are (or should be) environmentalists. Threads like this with some of the inflammatory comments seen here are used by the “crazy environmentalists” to belittle the entire group of hunters. We need to work together – we’re on the same side.
I have lived with wolves, been followed by them (both with and without meat on my shoulder), have scared them much more than I have been scared by them, and have watched them both while hunting and hiking in Wisconsin. I have seen their effect on deer numbers in Northern Wisconsin and applaud their subtle management.
The only issue I have with this discussion is the assertion that they are bad because they are “invasive.” If you use that argument for wolves it should be used for other invasive species. For example, use the same argument for the overabundance of “slow elk.” Cattle are ridiculously overpopulated on our public lands; they are invasive in the truest sense as they do not occur naturally -- anywhere. They do not belong on public land; feed lots are great. Keeping our public lands rich in vegetation is important to our game animals; cattle destroy this. I have come upon too many herds of burgers eating the vegetation that could be used to further support elk. I have talked with cattlemen who believe they own our public lands because their meal ticket eats there. If the argument was actually about wolves being invasive the same should apply to cattle. As hunters and lovers of wild game on our tables, we should be arguing against any invasive animal that takes resources away from what we live to pursue.
I am not actually arguing against grazing on public lands (even though I hate cattle) but the argument can be applied to both wolves and cattle. The only difference is that wolves have actually lived here before people; cows didn’t live anywhere.
You correctly label yourself an "environmentalist"
see definition:
Quote
Environmentalism or environmental rights is a broad philosophy, ideology, and social movement regarding concerns for environmental protection and improvement of the health of the environment, particularly as the measure for this health seeks to incorporate the concerns of non-human elements. While environmentalism focuses more on the environmental and nature-related aspects of green ideology and politics
I prefer to be labeled as a conservationist. Notice the absence of political ideology and addition of "who works to protect it" Environmentalists do not need to go in the woods ever, they don't need to pick up trash nor vote for a certain political candidate nor do they hold to non-human elements.
see definition:
Quote
A conservationist is someone who cares very much about the conservation of the environment and who works to protect it.
As for the grazing issue you're woefully uneducated and dangerous in your ignorance of what actually goes on (ignorance and dangerous go hand in hand with environmentalists)
responsible grazing improves habitat for Elk and other ungulates. They keep the grasses refreshed and full of nutrients instead of tall dead and lacking nutrients.
Do yourself and all other hunters a favor and get educated.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 08, 2017, 09:42:59 AM
KFHunter that's a pretty strong position on the habitat improvements made by cattle. There are some times/places that cattle can improve habitat for wild undulates, but that broad statement you made is false. Overall, in terms of habitat, cattle are a detriment.I hate to jump too far into this debate as there does not seem to be room to disagree with the “wolves don’t belong” crowd. Those of us who don’t mind wolves sharing our forests are categorized as wrong and are pigeonholed as crazy environmentalists. Hunters can be environmentalists and I would argue that hunters are (or should be) environmentalists. Threads like this with some of the inflammatory comments seen here are used by the “crazy environmentalists” to belittle the entire group of hunters. We need to work together – we’re on the same side.
I have lived with wolves, been followed by them (both with and without meat on my shoulder), have scared them much more than I have been scared by them, and have watched them both while hunting and hiking in Wisconsin. I have seen their effect on deer numbers in Northern Wisconsin and applaud their subtle management.
The only issue I have with this discussion is the assertion that they are bad because they are “invasive.” If you use that argument for wolves it should be used for other invasive species. For example, use the same argument for the overabundance of “slow elk.” Cattle are ridiculously overpopulated on our public lands; they are invasive in the truest sense as they do not occur naturally -- anywhere. They do not belong on public land; feed lots are great. Keeping our public lands rich in vegetation is important to our game animals; cattle destroy this. I have come upon too many herds of burgers eating the vegetation that could be used to further support elk. I have talked with cattlemen who believe they own our public lands because their meal ticket eats there. If the argument was actually about wolves being invasive the same should apply to cattle. As hunters and lovers of wild game on our tables, we should be arguing against any invasive animal that takes resources away from what we live to pursue.
I am not actually arguing against grazing on public lands (even though I hate cattle) but the argument can be applied to both wolves and cattle. The only difference is that wolves have actually lived here before people; cows didn’t live anywhere.
You correctly label yourself an "environmentalist"
see definition:QuoteEnvironmentalism or environmental rights is a broad philosophy, ideology, and social movement regarding concerns for environmental protection and improvement of the health of the environment, particularly as the measure for this health seeks to incorporate the concerns of non-human elements. While environmentalism focuses more on the environmental and nature-related aspects of green ideology and politics
I prefer to be labeled as a conservationist. Notice the absence of political ideology and addition of "who works to protect it" Environmentalists do not need to go in the woods ever, they don't need to pick up trash nor vote for a certain political candidate nor do they hold to non-human elements.
see definition:QuoteA conservationist is someone who cares very much about the conservation of the environment and who works to protect it.
As for the grazing issue you're woefully uneducated and dangerous in your ignorance of what actually goes on (ignorance and dangerous go hand in hand with environmentalists)
responsible grazing improves habitat for Elk and other ungulates. They keep the grasses refreshed and full of nutrients instead of tall dead and lacking nutrients.
Do yourself and all other hunters a favor and get educated.
I agree with you that there is a subtle, but important difference in the meaning of the terms "Environmentalist" and "Conservationist". There is a difference, and hunters generally belong in the Conservationist 'camp'. However, there are lots of environmentalist hunters (I know plenty), and there are lots of hunters who are not conservationists at all.
If the spirit of this forum is to "inform hunters", there should also be a spirit of conservation.
Post by: WI to WA on June 08, 2017, 09:52:02 AM
As for the grazing issue you're woefully uneducated and dangerous in your ignorance of what actually goes on (ignorance and dangerous go hand in hand with environmentalists)
responsible grazing improves habitat for Elk and other ungulates. They keep the grasses refreshed and full of nutrients instead of tall dead and lacking nutrients.
Do yourself and all other hunters a favor and get educated.
First, my comments were meant to illustrate a potential argument about wolves as invasive species, not necessarily my own beliefs (my last line illustrates this). I do not believe my comments warrant your polemic stance toward me. But, like I wrote, there is no room here for those of us who do not wish to demonize wolves, even if we are in favor of management. Secondly, I am pretty sure elk have been around longer than cattle and they miraculously survived before the cattle industry stepped in to apparently save the grass -- even with wolves.
Am I correct to assume that you are trying to insult me by labeling me an environmentalist based upon the Wikipedia definition you googled? Anyone fighting for conservation should be on the same side; there is a middle ground (where arguments generally end up as there is truth in both camps). While there is a large divide between some environmentalists and conservationists, this does not need to be the case. For those of us who walk between the two groups, name calling on both sides is damaging to each group, and each group is equally at fault for this. I would argue that labeling people, "woefully uneducated and dangerous in your ignorance of what actually goes on," is not actually in the interest of conservation as it only widens the divide as it is an argument levied by people on both ends of the spectrum. I work to educate my non-hunting friends (some of whom you would call "crazy environmentalists) every chance I get about the benefits of proper game pursuit and management. Before you ask, yes, the need for wolf management is often a part of this.
This forum & thread specifically, is a great example of a place where people who are passionate about hunting can come together to civilly make this divide smaller by discussing the areas where we have disagreement. It is through discussion that we find common ground. I welcome the discussion.
Post by: KFhunter on June 08, 2017, 09:56:11 AM
Actually grazing issues deserves its own thread, not to hijack this one. We could go on and on.
Post by: KFhunter on June 08, 2017, 09:58:11 AM
Post by: jackelope on June 08, 2017, 10:15:56 AM
Cattle are not an invasive or introduced species, they don't live in the woods year around seeking their own survival and propagation. They are a forest use item, like ATVs, fishing, logging and hunting.
So they're native?
Post by: KFhunter on June 08, 2017, 10:38:35 AM
Cattle are not an invasive or introduced species, they don't live in the woods year around seeking their own survival and propagation. They are a forest use item, like ATVs, fishing, logging and hunting.
So they're native?
They're about as native as a Sthil, Caterpillar or a Remington rifle and fit within that classification. I think you miss my point, they're not there year around, they're not classified as wildlife, they are a user group using a forest product (grasses and certain shrubs) that have no other resale value. There are public lands leased to farmers that do grow crops on public lands.
I contend that cattle can and do improve habitat, there are not enough Elk, Deer or other animals utilizing the grasses and shrubs to keep things refreshed. If we ever reach those numbers -where ungulates are over grazing/browsing- then let's have this conversation again and see if Cattle should continue to keep grazing public lands.
Until then, there is room for both.
Post by: Gringo31 on June 08, 2017, 10:57:44 AM
As far as cattle not being native and therefore invasive.....
I'd have to question most of the crops grown in this country......if you wanted to go there.
I'd like to hear how wolves being re-introduced into the lower 48 is a good/smart/educated move in the step towards conservation.
Post by: Gringo31 on June 08, 2017, 10:59:14 AM
It seems when we go down roads like this the only real solution is to all get back on the boat and go back to Europe?
It's for this reason that folks get sideways on certain "environmentalists".
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 08, 2017, 11:08:47 AM
I'm not sure I follow...?
It seems when we go down roads like this the only real solution is to all get back on the boat and go back to Europe?
It's for this reason that folks get sideways on certain "environmentalists".
I don't think anyone (right minded) would disagree that we live in an altered landscape. That doesn't mean that we can't try to rebuild and reconnect systems when possible. I think we should be trying to restore landscapes to at least ecologically functional systems whenever possible
Post by: jackelope on June 08, 2017, 11:11:24 AM
That is unfortunate.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 08, 2017, 11:38:13 AM
Post by: KFhunter on June 08, 2017, 11:40:08 AM
To me, this thread and the resulting comments are more about people labeling others just because of differing views. Some hate wolves, some don't mind them and some love them. If you're not in the wolf haters club, you're labeled a lover. It happens. It's happened to me. It's happened to the guy who started this thread and now it's going to happen to the guy from WI.
That is unfortunate.
I'm not labeling anyone that didn't already label themselves. Yes, I have a beef with environmentalists, they (as a whole) seek to keep people from using the forest for various reasons and no hunter can abide by that if they're informed. Some don't want people at all in the forest while others seem content with zero mechanization and zero impact, by definition they are political.
As for wolves I've already stated that I have no hate, love or any other human emotions ascribed to them. I'm against Anthropomorphism, humanizing animals, because then management is based on emotion rather than science. Which is exactly what we have in WA.
Quote
That is unfortunate.
What's unfortunate is hunters systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights, and the rights of other user groups.
Post by: singleshot12 on June 08, 2017, 11:44:02 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on June 08, 2017, 11:52:28 AM
So you are a wolf lover?:chuckle:
Post by: Special T on June 08, 2017, 11:56:18 AM
The fact that the USFWS is pushing grizzly importation into the northcascades despite it being against state law, and any kind of common sense is a current example.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: jackelope on June 08, 2017, 01:15:10 PM
To me, this thread and the resulting comments are more about people labeling others just because of differing views. Some hate wolves, some don't mind them and some love them. If you're not in the wolf haters club, you're labeled a lover. It happens. It's happened to me. It's happened to the guy who started this thread and now it's going to happen to the guy from WI.
That is unfortunate.
I'm not labeling anyone that didn't already label themselves. Yes, I have a beef with environmentalists, they (as a whole) seek to keep people from using the forest for various reasons and no hunter can abide by that if they're informed. Some don't want people at all in the forest while others seem content with zero mechanization and zero impact, by definition they are political.
As for wolves I've already stated that I have no hate, love or any other human emotions ascribed to them. I'm against Anthropomorphism, humanizing animals, because then management is based on emotion rather than science. Which is exactly what we have in WA.QuoteThat is unfortunate.
What's unfortunate is hunters systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights, and the rights of other user groups.
Genuine question. I don't understand the part I highlighted. Someone doesn't want mechanization, and that is political? Please expand.....
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 08, 2017, 01:17:00 PM
Post by: KFhunter on June 08, 2017, 01:25:37 PM
To me, this thread and the resulting comments are more about people labeling others just because of differing views. Some hate wolves, some don't mind them and some love them. If you're not in the wolf haters club, you're labeled a lover. It happens. It's happened to me. It's happened to the guy who started this thread and now it's going to happen to the guy from WI.
That is unfortunate.
I'm not labeling anyone that didn't already label themselves. Yes, I have a beef with environmentalists, they (as a whole) seek to keep people from using the forest for various reasons and no hunter can abide by that if they're informed. Some don't want people at all in the forest while others seem content with zero mechanization and zero impact, by definition they are political.
As for wolves I've already stated that I have no hate, love or any other human emotions ascribed to them. I'm against Anthropomorphism, humanizing animals, because then management is based on emotion rather than science. Which is exactly what we have in WA.QuoteThat is unfortunate.
What's unfortunate is hunters systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights, and the rights of other user groups.
Genuine question. I don't understand the part I highlighted. Someone doesn't want mechanization, and that is political? Please expand.....
I refer to the holy grail for environmentalists, creating more wilderness areas.
Post by: OutHouse on June 08, 2017, 01:47:28 PM
I hate to jump too far into this debate as there does not seem to be room to disagree with the “wolves don’t belong” crowd. Those of us who don’t mind wolves sharing our forests are categorized as wrong and are pigeonholed as crazy environmentalists. Hunters can be environmentalists and I would argue that hunters are (or should be) environmentalists. Threads like this with some of the inflammatory comments seen here are used by the “crazy environmentalists” to belittle the entire group of hunters. We need to work together – we’re on the same side.
I have lived with wolves, been followed by them (both with and without meat on my shoulder), have scared them much more than I have been scared by them, and have watched them both while hunting and hiking in Wisconsin. I have seen their effect on deer numbers in Northern Wisconsin and applaud their subtle management.
The only issue I have with this discussion is the assertion that they are bad because they are “invasive.” If you use that argument for wolves it should be used for other invasive species. For example, use the same argument for the overabundance of “slow elk.” Cattle are ridiculously overpopulated on our public lands; they are invasive in the truest sense as they do not occur naturally -- anywhere. They do not belong on public land; feed lots are great. Keeping our public lands rich in vegetation is important to our game animals; cattle destroy this. I have come upon too many herds of burgers eating the vegetation that could be used to further support elk. I have talked with cattlemen who believe they own our public lands because their meal ticket eats there. If the argument was actually about wolves being invasive the same should apply to cattle. As hunters and lovers of wild game on our tables, we should be arguing against any invasive animal that takes resources away from what we live to pursue.
I am not actually arguing against grazing on public lands (even though I hate cattle) but the argument can be applied to both wolves and cattle. The only difference is that wolves have actually lived here before people; cows didn’t live anywhere.
:yeah:
What a thoughtful, reasoned, and pragmatic approach to this debate. You wolf lover you! Just kidding. I have no doubt your use of the word environmentalist, while appropriate, will anger those with extreme viewpoints because they are easily triggered by anything that could associate them with the left. I'm hearing a lot of gripes from those completely against wolves but it can all be summed up with their fear that it will be harder to fill their tag if we have wolves in this state. I don't have a problem competing with wolves for my animal. Done it before. Maybe some will just have to get better at hunting or take up a new hobby.
Post by: WAcoueshunter on June 08, 2017, 01:50:37 PM
As for wolves I've already stated that I have no hate, love or any other human emotions ascribed to them. I'm against Anthropomorphism, humanizing animals, because then management is based on emotion rather than science. Which is exactly what we have in WA.
:yeah: Which is why I shake my head every time someone posts wolf kill pics. Doing nothing other than trying to stir an emotional response, exactly the same thing as wolf puppy pictures. By nature, wolves kill other animals, just like a lot of other animals. Sometimes they eat them, sometimes they don't. Happens everywhere else in nature too. I think our arguments for scientific management are stronger if we actually stick to the science ourselves.
Post by: KFhunter on June 08, 2017, 01:54:10 PM
Wolves don't make you a better hunter :chuckle: they expose more elk to more hunters benefiting road hunters/opportunistic type hunters, and make it harder for hard core "hike in 20 miles and call" type hunters. They flush elk out of the deep dark holes they use to escape the incoming orange tide of hunters.
Less opportunity discourages new hunters, it doesn't create more hunters.
Post by: jackelope on June 08, 2017, 01:57:50 PM
10-4To me, this thread and the resulting comments are more about people labeling others just because of differing views. Some hate wolves, some don't mind them and some love them. If you're not in the wolf haters club, you're labeled a lover. It happens. It's happened to me. It's happened to the guy who started this thread and now it's going to happen to the guy from WI.
That is unfortunate.
I'm not labeling anyone that didn't already label themselves. Yes, I have a beef with environmentalists, they (as a whole) seek to keep people from using the forest for various reasons and no hunter can abide by that if they're informed. Some don't want people at all in the forest while others seem content with zero mechanization and zero impact, by definition they are political.
As for wolves I've already stated that I have no hate, love or any other human emotions ascribed to them. I'm against Anthropomorphism, humanizing animals, because then management is based on emotion rather than science. Which is exactly what we have in WA.QuoteThat is unfortunate.
What's unfortunate is hunters systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights, and the rights of other user groups.
Genuine question. I don't understand the part I highlighted. Someone doesn't want mechanization, and that is political? Please expand.....
I refer to the holy grail for environmentalists, creating more wilderness areas.
So someone who is in favor of more wilderness is an "environmentalist" in your eyes, regardless of their history or views as a hunter or outdoorsman?
Post by: KFhunter on June 08, 2017, 02:03:08 PM
Wilderness creation was just one aspect, another one I alluded to is things using ESA to drive out certain land users
Post by: ribka on June 08, 2017, 02:03:21 PM
No other apex predator reproduces a the rate wolves do. So introduce them and how do you control the numbers without trapping and poison ?
Those are the only 2 methods that have been proven to control their numbers. I highly doubt that they will ever allow hunting them here either.
Those methods will never be approved in WA and Oregon. Does not take a genius to see what future holds for sportsmen here. Ever year fewer and fewer hunting opportunities now add uncontrolled wolf introduction.
Post by: ribka on June 08, 2017, 02:09:59 PM
A very common myth perpetrated by the pro wolf urban crowd is that wolves only kill sick and weak animals and therefore help strengthen elk deer and mooses populations. Wolves are one of the few predators that do thrill kills and leave untouched carcasses sometimes in the dozens. What other apex predator kills dozens of animals and just leaves them? I don't know of any. I have seen first hand slaughter of deer and untouched bodies in the Clearwater unit in Idaho
Go to get facts out there
As for wolves I've already stated that I have no hate, love or any other human emotions ascribed to them. I'm against Anthropomorphism, humanizing animals, because then management is based on emotion rather than science. Which is exactly what we have in WA.
:yeah: Which is why I shake my head every time someone posts wolf kill pics. Doing nothing other than trying to stir an emotional response, exactly the same thing as wolf puppy pictures. By nature, wolves kill other animals, just like a lot of other animals. Sometimes they eat them, sometimes they don't. Happens everywhere else in nature too. I think our arguments for scientific management are stronger if we actually stick to the science ourselves.
Post by: bearpaw on June 08, 2017, 02:20:49 PM
Post by: KFhunter on June 08, 2017, 02:21:54 PM
As for wolves I've already stated that I have no hate, love or any other human emotions ascribed to them. I'm against Anthropomorphism, humanizing animals, because then management is based on emotion rather than science. Which is exactly what we have in WA.
:yeah: Which is why I shake my head every time someone posts wolf kill pics. Doing nothing other than trying to stir an emotional response, exactly the same thing as wolf puppy pictures. By nature, wolves kill other animals, just like a lot of other animals. Sometimes they eat them, sometimes they don't. Happens everywhere else in nature too. I think our arguments for scientific management are stronger if we actually stick to the science ourselves.
Same could be said of your avatar, not sure I follow this logic :dunno: I have no issue with a success pic of any lawfully hunted animal.
Post by: KFhunter on June 08, 2017, 02:24:44 PM
I can tell you this, unmanaged wolves will spell the end to hunting as we know it in NE Washington and other areas where wolves over populate. I've taken numerous photos of wolf tracks this spring, in most cases there are no other tracks in the same mud puddles in areas where there are wolves, the animals that used to make tracks in those mud puddles are now in small piles of wolf scat. :twocents:
Those scat piles will make you a better hunting guide Dale...
Post by: jackelope on June 08, 2017, 02:26:17 PM
Are you in favor of more wilderness?
Wilderness creation was just one aspect, another one I alluded to is things using ESA to drive out certain land users
I'm in favor of less roads. Call it what you want.
Post by: WAcoueshunter on June 08, 2017, 02:29:26 PM
A very common myth perpetrated by the pro wolf urban crowd is that wolves only kill sick and weak animals and therefore help strengthen elk deer and mooses populations. Wolves are one of the few predators that do thrill kills and leave untouched carcasses sometimes in the dozens. What other apex predator kills dozens of animals and just leaves them? I don't know of any. I have seen first hand slaughter of deer and untouched bodies in the Clearwater unit in Idaho
Go to get facts out there
"Thrill kills"? Isn't that the definition of anthropomorphism? How do we know if they get any thrill out of it?
I don't know why they do it. All I know are the facts. I.e., that killing happens, all over nature, and something the predator eats the whole thing right there and sometimes they don't.
Post by: WAcoueshunter on June 08, 2017, 02:30:04 PM
As for wolves I've already stated that I have no hate, love or any other human emotions ascribed to them. I'm against Anthropomorphism, humanizing animals, because then management is based on emotion rather than science. Which is exactly what we have in WA.
:yeah: Which is why I shake my head every time someone posts wolf kill pics. Doing nothing other than trying to stir an emotional response, exactly the same thing as wolf puppy pictures. By nature, wolves kill other animals, just like a lot of other animals. Sometimes they eat them, sometimes they don't. Happens everywhere else in nature too. I think our arguments for scientific management are stronger if we actually stick to the science ourselves.
Same could be said of your avatar, not sure I follow this logic :dunno: I have no issue with a success pic of any lawfully hunted animal.
Sorry, I was unclear. I like to see dead wolf pics just like every other success photo!
Meant I don't get it when we post pics of wolves killing other animals, and use those photos to elicit an emotional response to support wolves are bad.
Post by: KFhunter on June 08, 2017, 02:32:25 PM
Are you in favor of more wilderness?
Wilderness creation was just one aspect, another one I alluded to is things using ESA to drive out certain land users
I'm in favor of less roads. Call it what you want.
Come hunt the east side then, our roads are disappearing at an alarming rate. The latest tactic is diabolically simple, just don't repair them.
So many washed out roads that will remain closed and impassable.
The result is vast tracts of land that see little to no use = defacto wilderness.
I hike back in miles and see zero human activity, but go on an open road and it's choked with humans. I hate to see people corralled into less and less land, which has a greater visible impact, which makes it easier to close more areas due to that artificially created impact. It's a vicious circle. Open it all up and people will disperse and have less localized impact.
People management.
Post by: jackelope on June 08, 2017, 02:38:58 PM
Are you in favor of more wilderness?
Wilderness creation was just one aspect, another one I alluded to is things using ESA to drive out certain land users
I'm in favor of less roads. Call it what you want.
Come hunt the east side then, our roads are disappearing at an alarming rate. The latest tactic is diabolically simple, just don't repair them.
So many washed out roads that will remain closed and impassable.
The result is vast tracts of land that see little to no use = defacto wilderness.
I hike back in miles and see zero human activity, but go on an open road and it's choked with humans. I hate to see people corralled into less and less land, which has a greater visible impact, which makes it easier to close more areas due to that artificially created impact. It's a vicious circle. Open it all up and people will disperse and have less localized impact.
People management.
I pretty much only hunt the eastside. Usually lately in wilderness areas where the majority of hunters don't go. Occasionally I hunt private farmland in e-wa around my family's place, but usually only if my daughter says she wants to go.
Post by: KFhunter on June 08, 2017, 02:42:24 PM
You'd advocate for less roads and therefore less opportunity for those who cannot hike miles back in a roadless area and/or lack access to family owned property?
Post by: bearpaw on June 08, 2017, 02:47:51 PM
So because you hunt roadless areas and wilderness, you think all hunters should adhere to your standards of hunting?
You'd advocate for less roads and therefore less opportunity for those who cannot hike miles back in a roadless area and/or lack access to family owned property?
That's exactly what i see with the wilderness advocating crowd! :twocents:
What about the hunters who don't want to or can't hunt miles from a road? Who cares, they don't matter!
Post by: buglebrush on June 08, 2017, 03:34:02 PM
I can tell you this, unmanaged wolves will spell the end to hunting as we know it in NE Washington and other areas where wolves over populate. I've taken numerous photos of wolf tracks this spring, in most cases there are no other tracks in the same mud puddles in areas where there are wolves, the animals that used to make tracks in those mud puddles are now in small piles of wolf scat. :twocents:
Exactly. Which is why those of us who live here, and have seen the changes over the last twenty years are universally against wolves. I am sick of trying to explain it over and over again. The non native Wolf species introduced have put us in a predator pit, and add Washington had shown no inclination to aggressively manage any predators, we are most likely heading for the end to OTC hunting. I am concerned about my son heading the kind of opportunities I did. To those who claim our concerns are based on selfish desires/ inabilities to successfully harvest game... I have no words to express how wrong you are, and furthermore I guarantee I kill more elk than you :hello:
Post by: Curly on June 08, 2017, 03:36:49 PM
Post by: Special T on June 08, 2017, 03:41:16 PM
And don't forget that Grizzly introduction is likely going to be forced upon us in this state too. :bdid: :oI went to the meeting in Mount Vernon. The USFW didn't want to hold a meeting in the county most likely to be affected. They also would not address the illegality of importing them into the state.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: idahohuntr on June 08, 2017, 03:49:21 PM
What is illegal about the feds introducing grizzlies into Wa? Not that I support such actions.And don't forget that Grizzly introduction is likely going to be forced upon us in this state too. :bdid: :oI went to the meeting in Mount Vernon. The USFW didn't want to hold a meeting in the county most likely to be affected. They also would not address the illegality of importing them into the state.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: OutHouse on June 08, 2017, 03:51:53 PM
What you're missing is---> Wolves make it much harder to kill elk from the road...mic drop.
There appears to be a split on this issue. Just talked to a buddy in Alaska over the lunch hour. He's been up there 30 years and hunts every season. He thought the idea that wolves push animals closer to roads was complete nonsense. He said it's the exact opposite, that they dig in even deeper and further away from other animals including man.
Post by: Special T on June 08, 2017, 03:56:48 PM
I would have to do some looking, but Washington state has a law against the importation of Grizzly. It does acknowledge the natural migration of them into the state and makes the case that a hands off approach should be the case. Pretty sure it's an old law... 70's I think. I'll try and find it later on my computer.What is illegal about the feds introducing grizzlies into Wa? Not that I support such actions.And don't forget that Grizzly introduction is likely going to be forced upon us in this state too. :bdid: :oI went to the meeting in Mount Vernon. The USFW didn't want to hold a meeting in the county most likely to be affected. They also would not address the illegality of importing them into the state.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: theleo on June 08, 2017, 04:00:39 PM
An area that does not allow the use of motorized equipment, mechanized forms of transportation, and where the land can not be used for commercial/private profit unless permits are grandfathered in.Are you in favor of more wilderness?
Wilderness creation was just one aspect, another one I alluded to is things using ESA to drive out certain land users
I'm in favor of less roads. Call it what you want.
Post by: OutHouse on June 08, 2017, 04:00:55 PM
Post by: Special T on June 08, 2017, 04:09:24 PM
The commission shall protect grizzly bears and develop management programs on publicly owned lands that will encourage the natural regeneration of grizzly bears in areas with suitable habitat. Grizzly bears shall not be transplanted or introduced into the state. Only grizzly bears that are native to Washington state may be utilized by the department for management programs. The department is directed to fully participate in all discussions and negotiations with federal and state agencies relating to grizzly bear management and shall fully communicate, support, and implement the policies of this section.
[ 2000 c 107 § 211; 1995 c 370 § 1.]
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Special T on June 08, 2017, 04:11:25 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: OutHouse on June 08, 2017, 04:11:31 PM
Protection of grizzly bears—Limitation on transplantation or introduction—Negotiations with federal and state agencies.
The commission shall protect grizzly bears and develop management programs on publicly owned lands that will encourage the natural regeneration of grizzly bears in areas with suitable habitat. Grizzly bears shall not be transplanted or introduced into the state. Only grizzly bears that are native to Washington state may be utilized by the department for management programs. The department is directed to fully participate in all discussions and negotiations with federal and state agencies relating to grizzly bear management and shall fully communicate, support, and implement the policies of this section.
[ 2000 c 107 § 211; 1995 c 370 § 1.]
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
I suppose the national forests are not owned by the state and therefore that's their loophole for re-introduction.
Post by: kentrek on June 08, 2017, 04:17:54 PM
So because you hunt roadless areas and wilderness, you think all hunters should adhere to your standards of hunting?
You'd advocate for less roads and therefore less opportunity for those who cannot hike miles back in a roadless area and/or lack access to family owned property?
That's exactly what i see with the wilderness advocating crowd! :twocents:
What about the hunters who don't want to or can't hunt miles from a road? Who cares, they don't matter!
Whose more important ?? I highly doubt jackalope has ever said he doesnt care about disabled or unwhiling hunters....why would you say that ?
Post by: bearpaw on June 08, 2017, 04:23:11 PM
So because you hunt roadless areas and wilderness, you think all hunters should adhere to your standards of hunting?
You'd advocate for less roads and therefore less opportunity for those who cannot hike miles back in a roadless area and/or lack access to family owned property?
That's exactly what i see with the wilderness advocating crowd! :twocents:
What about the hunters who don't want to or can't hunt miles from a road? Who cares, they don't matter!
Whose more important ?? I highly doubt jackalope has ever said he doesnt care about disabled or unwhiling hunters....why would you say that ?
This is my comment to anyone advocating fewer roads. I have friends who simply cannot hike in to hunt. My dad hunted bear as long as he could drive to his favorite spot and sit in a lawn chair on the edge of the road. He would not have been able to do that if the wilderness crowd had their way!
So, I ask again, you included:
What about the hunters who don't want to or can't hunt miles from a road? Why don't they matter?
Post by: bearpaw on June 08, 2017, 04:31:51 PM
FYI - My business would benefit by removing roads, more people would need pack in services, but I don't beleive it's right to take away access from the majority of the public users! :twocents:
Post by: Alchase on June 08, 2017, 04:38:11 PM
Maybe it's just an oversight by some wilderness pushers? Some I know don't care, but removing roads really puts all hunters with any type of physical restriction at a significant disadvantage. I'm not saying we need to start making new roads, let's just stop taking access away from people. There are 22 wilderness areas in Washington, that is enough! We have countless other unroaded areas that also provide many opportunities to get away from the road system.
FYI - My business would benefit by removing roads, more people would need pack in services, but I don't beleive it's right to take away access from the majority of the public users! :twocents:
I could not agree more!
Post by: kentrek on June 08, 2017, 04:47:48 PM
So because you hunt roadless areas and wilderness, you think all hunters should adhere to your standards of hunting?
You'd advocate for less roads and therefore less opportunity for those who cannot hike miles back in a roadless area and/or lack access to family owned property?
That's exactly what i see with the wilderness advocating crowd! :twocents:
What about the hunters who don't want to or can't hunt miles from a road? Who cares, they don't matter!
Whose more important ?? I highly doubt jackalope has ever said he doesnt care about disabled or unwhiling hunters....why would you say that ?
This is my comment to anyone advocating fewer roads. I have friends who simply cannot hike in to hunt. My dad hunted bear as long as he could drive to his favorite spot and sit in a lawn chair on the edge of the road. He would not have been able to do that if the wilderness crowd had their way!
So, I ask again, you included:
What about the hunters who don't want to or can't hunt miles from a road? Why don't they matter?
Of course they matter, isn't there plenty of land that has roads to hunt ??
Post by: kentrek on June 08, 2017, 04:55:34 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 08, 2017, 05:24:09 PM
Maybe it's just an oversight by some wilderness pushers? Some I know don't care, but removing roads really puts all hunters with any type of physical restriction at a significant disadvantage. I'm not saying we need to start making new roads, let's just stop taking access away from people. There are 22 wilderness areas in Washington, that is enough! We have countless other unroaded areas that also provide many opportunities to get away from the road system.How much packing business do you do?
FYI - My business would benefit by removing roads, more people would need pack in services, but I don't beleive it's right to take away access from the majority of the public users! :twocents:
How much of your hunting in this state is done on public land? I realize you probably don't have an exact ratio, but would you say half or 3/4 or 1/4 of your outfitting is done on public land?
The map that Kentrek provided makes a clear and concise statement on the amount of wilderness areas in this state. There may be 22 wilderness areas in this state but how many of those are of any significance in size? How many of those 22 are just one connected to another? Think the Henry M Jackson Wilderness and the Wild Sky Wilderness. They're almost the same area west of the crest.
I'm not pushing for more wilderness. I'm fine with what we have now. What I don't want is what public land we do have that is not designated wilderness to be more and more chopped up with roads. I also don't want 4 wheelers bombing all over wherever they want.
There are places in the central Cascades where it's hard enough to get a mile from a road...nevermind miles and miles. Those places suck to hunt if you ask me, and they're littered with people who pay no attention to gates and run their quads and dirtbikes wherever they feel like.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 08, 2017, 05:25:02 PM
Here's an example of the wilderness area taking over.....wilderness is everything in blue.... so like I asked....whose more important ??dark green is wilderness too
Post by: Duckslayer89 on June 08, 2017, 06:01:24 PM
The moose looks like it is being eaten alive...Gotta love those wolves
Likely every wolf in that picture is now dead.
And every moose in pic as well
Actually the moose population has rebounded exponentially, and all but 2 of the wolves on the island are dead as of this past winter.
(That's an old photo from Isle Royale on Lake Superior)
http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/sites/default/files/annual-report-pdf/Annual%20Report%202016-2017_0.pdf
Every moose IN PIC
Sarcasm/joke
Post by: kentrek on June 08, 2017, 06:08:22 PM
Here's an example of the wilderness area taking over.....wilderness is everything in blue.... so like I asked....whose more important ??dark green is wilderness too
Dark green is parks....which we can't hunt
Post by: nwwanderer on June 08, 2017, 07:43:44 PM
Post by: ribka on June 08, 2017, 08:18:51 PM
Were they bored? Conducting scientific research?
http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2013/08/two-wolves-kill-176-sheep-1-night-near-idaho-falls
Each wolf killed over 85 sheep and just leaves them
Hi would you describe this behavior?
There many other well documented high number kills of live stock and deer by wolves where they did not bother to eat anything
A very common myth perpetrated by the pro wolf urban crowd is that wolves only kill sick and weak animals and therefore help strengthen elk deer and mooses populations. Wolves are one of the few predators that do thrill kills and leave untouched carcasses sometimes in the dozens. What other apex predator kills dozens of animals and just leaves them? I don't know of any. I have seen first hand slaughter of deer and untouched bodies in the Clearwater unit in Idaho
Go to get facts out there
"Thrill kills"? Isn't that the definition of anthropomorphism? How do we know if they get any thrill out of it?
I don't know why they do it. All I know are the facts. I.e., that killing happens, all over nature, and something the predator eats the whole thing right there and sometimes they don't.
Post by: yakimanoob on June 08, 2017, 09:31:36 PM
To me, this thread and the resulting comments are more about people labeling others just because of differing views. Some hate wolves, some don't mind them and some love them. If you're not in the wolf haters club, you're labeled a lover. It happens. It's happened to me. It's happened to the guy who started this thread and now it's going to happen to the guy from WI.My thoughts exactly.
That is unfortunate.
Post by: yakimanoob on June 08, 2017, 09:54:08 PM
Why would wolves do this?Why an animal does something is a very interesting question for behavior scientists. But yes, assuming wolves do it for the thrill is anthropomorphizing them. Hating or loving them is not.
Were they bored? Conducting scientific research?
http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/newshound/2013/08/two-wolves-kill-176-sheep-1-night-near-idaho-falls
Each wolf killed over 85 sheep and just leaves them
Hi would you describe this behavior?
There many other well documented high number kills of live stock and deer by wolves where they did not bother to eat anything
A very common myth perpetrated by the pro wolf urban crowd is that wolves only kill sick and weak animals and therefore help strengthen elk deer and mooses populations. Wolves are one of the few predators that do thrill kills and leave untouched carcasses sometimes in the dozens. What other apex predator kills dozens of animals and just leaves them? I don't know of any. I have seen first hand slaughter of deer and untouched bodies in the Clearwater unit in Idaho
Go to get facts out there
"Thrill kills"? Isn't that the definition of anthropomorphism? How do we know if they get any thrill out of it?
I don't know why they do it. All I know are the facts. I.e., that killing happens, all over nature, and something the predator eats the whole thing right there and sometimes they don't.
I really, really love cookies. If you sub cookies in for wolves in KFHunter's argument, you sound insane.
Post by: yakimanoob on June 08, 2017, 10:01:53 PM
Yakimanoob what have you got to say?I'm back to that extreme grief and unfettered rage thing, just aimed at wolves this time.
Post by: yakimanoob on June 08, 2017, 10:05:21 PM
But my knee-jerk smart-assery aside, I'm not sure if you're asking me a legitimate question. If you are, please clarify what you'd like to know and I'd be glad to answer to the best of my ability.Yakimanoob what have you got to say?I'm back to that extreme grief and unfettered rage thing, just aimed at wolves this time.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 09, 2017, 05:24:38 AM
Post by: Gringo31 on June 09, 2017, 06:27:23 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: wolfbait on June 09, 2017, 06:50:24 AM
As for wolves I've already stated that I have no hate, love or any other human emotions ascribed to them. I'm against Anthropomorphism, humanizing animals, because then management is based on emotion rather than science. Which is exactly what we have in WA.
:yeah: Which is why I shake my head every time someone posts wolf kill pics. Doing nothing other than trying to stir an emotional response, exactly the same thing as wolf puppy pictures. By nature, wolves kill other animals, just like a lot of other animals. Sometimes they eat them, sometimes they don't. Happens everywhere else in nature too. I think our arguments for scientific management are stronger if we actually stick to the science ourselves.
The "science" end of the wolf introduction is like the Paris climate agreement. The illegal introduction was never about saving/replacing a wolf species etc. but instead the agenda of using an apex predator to tip the scales enough to end hunting and ruin livestock grazing on public lands.
The pictures I posted are exactly the outcome of the introduced wolves and the reason behind the introduction. No emotion, just the facts!
The science argument is just BS cover for environmentalists etc..
Post by: yakimanoob on June 09, 2017, 10:13:27 AM
Yakimanoob you say you love wolves. You have heard a lot of reasons why some of the hunters have a dislike for them. Mainly because it severely curtails hunting opportunities. Tell us why you love this creature as stated. Do you not feel a threat to you right to hunt or your chance of harvesting an animal? When you create such a controversial topic on a hunting forum you have to expect a backlash. It might not have such a hot button as if you said I love grizzlies, seriously. I think you will find that if you were a serious hunter that hunts multiple states there is going to be opposition to your view because of the jeopardy to serious hunters resource.I will say again that I have never challenged the idea that they're a threat to hunting opportunities. I love them because they're amazing, intelligent creatures. But that doesn't mean I think they should be in Washington or that there should be more of them in Washington or that they should be protected as endangered. Again, my goal in posting the question was to learn why people seem to hate the animals themselves. I'm not nearly educated enough on the topic to debate their presence in our state.
If you're curious, I'm learning two major points by reading through the responses here:
1) There is a tremendous amount of political anger and offense at how these animals were re-introduced and are managed. I'm struck by the comments calling the introduction illegal and the idea of this being part of a larger anti-hunting agenda. It's not hard for me to see how easy it must be for people in Washington to go from feeling slighted, or maybe even abused, by their own government to hating the creatures at the center of that abuse. I'm also learning that those who actually hate the wolves themselves are definitely the minority, and I only got the impression people hate the creatures because of the intensity of the anger over the situation.
2) It seems the overall quality of conversation about the subject has degenerated to the level typical of political conversations today. Those who disagree with you must be idiots or have some sinister motive that threatens your lifestyle. Anyone who doesn't automatically agree with you must be your enemy and you'd rather them not speak. I'm still chuckling at the comment about needing smacked upside the head and having my nose shoved in the mud, as if that would result in me seeing your side of the argument. Banning people from the forum, accusing them of being dishonest, or otherwise lashing back at them is, if nothing else, an exceptionally ineffective way of convincing someone that they should change their mind. That's the way you make enemies, not allies.
And this is what seems the highest shame of this thread. I'm a hunter and I'd like to see our rights and opportunities protected. But we live in a republic, and the only hope we have to protect our rights is to ensure we have enough popular support to maintain those rights. The minute we offend the majority is the minute we forfeit our rights. So please, quit picking fights with people who disagree with you, and work to bridge the gap instead of widening it.
Post by: yakimanoob on June 09, 2017, 10:17:13 AM
That's the exact same tactic used by the anti-hunting crowd: they post photos of a gutted and half-butchered animal and accuse us all of being savages who should be banned.
Post by: KFhunter on June 09, 2017, 10:25:04 AM
Maybe it's just an oversight by some wilderness pushers? Some I know don't care, but removing roads really puts all hunters with any type of physical restriction at a significant disadvantage. I'm not saying we need to start making new roads, let's just stop taking access away from people. There are 22 wilderness areas in Washington, that is enough! We have countless other unroaded areas that also provide many opportunities to get away from the road system.How much packing business do you do?
FYI - My business would benefit by removing roads, more people would need pack in services, but I don't beleive it's right to take away access from the majority of the public users! :twocents:
How much of your hunting in this state is done on public land? I realize you probably don't have an exact ratio, but would you say half or 3/4 or 1/4 of your outfitting is done on public land?
The map that Kentrek provided makes a clear and concise statement on the amount of wilderness areas in this state. There may be 22 wilderness areas in this state but how many of those are of any significance in size? How many of those 22 are just one connected to another? Think the Henry M Jackson Wilderness and the Wild Sky Wilderness. They're almost the same area west of the crest.
I'm not pushing for more wilderness. I'm fine with what we have now. What I don't want is what public land we do have that is not designated wilderness to be more and more chopped up with roads. I also don't want 4 wheelers bombing all over wherever they want.
There are places in the central Cascades where it's hard enough to get a mile from a road...nevermind miles and miles. Those places suck to hunt if you ask me, and they're littered with people who pay no attention to gates and run their quads and dirtbikes wherever they feel like.
I don't want more roads either, I just want the ones we do have to stay open.
What peeves me is:
1) the gate is closed and
2) there's an ATV trail going around 99% of the closed gates
So what's the point of closing the gates?? It keeps legal people like me hamstrung because we don't drive around closed gates and rewards those who do drive around the gate. Heck, I even see deer camps setup right in front of locked gates to prevent other hunters from illegally going around the locked gate while the campers are riding their ATV's through with impunity.
3) roads are being closed due to washouts and disrepair and not being fixed
Post by: Special T on June 09, 2017, 10:34:55 AM
How many threads in the wolf discussion have you read? Even if you ignored all the personal comments and just read the articles you would be much better versed on the subject.
The summery would be this. The ESA is a weapon used by many to attack the rural lifestyle. The wolf is the best tool to fight hunters. Proof is in the comparison of our "wolf recovery" plan and those of I'D, WY, MT. Ad to it the direct influence Anti hunting Orgs like DOW and HSUS have with the WDFW & USFWS and you will see why there is no trust. Without TRUST, there can be no good faith negotiations. Get dry shaved a few times in a row and see how willing you are to WORK to find a compromise.
I don't need to support the WDFW to shoot my bow, Gun, camp and enjoy the outdoors. Perhaps the next time a merger is proposed between the Parks, dnr & wdfw sportsmen won't come to their aid a second time.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: jackelope on June 09, 2017, 11:30:18 AM
Post by: yakimanoob on June 09, 2017, 11:33:50 AM
@yakimanoob
How many threads in the wolf discussion have you read? Even if you ignored all the personal comments and just read the articles you would be much better versed on the subject.
Not having read enough is a fair criticism. I have a tendency to ask questions before doing a lot of research independently. For that, I happily apologize.
Post by: Gringo31 on June 09, 2017, 12:57:10 PM
This is why people assumed you were a troll.
People on a hunting Washington forum have hunting in this state in common. Short story is that opportunities are reduced with wolves. Money is spent to reduce our opportunity.
That makes some people angry. The fix isn't about grazing rights, increasing skill set as a hunter if elk have been reduced in your area and you can't find them, or..............
But then, I have to stop and remind myself I'm wasting my time trying to explain. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on June 09, 2017, 01:12:07 PM
I can't believe you just dropped a dry shave reference.I couldn't help it... It's just such a great descriptor that paints a mental picture.
I haven't found a good concise way to use the Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown analogy.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on June 09, 2017, 01:17:03 PM
So you start a thread saying "I love wolves. Seriously", admit you know little about it, but then get upset when people who know this party well get upset.
This is why people assumed you were a troll.
People on a hunting Washington forum have hunting in this state in common. Short story is that opportunities are reduced with wolves. Money is spent to reduce our opportunity.
That makes some people angry. The fix isn't about grazing rights, increasing skill set as a hunter if elk have been reduced in your area and you can't find them, or..............
But then, I have to stop and remind myself I'm wasting my time trying to explain. :twocents:
Expanding further on this:
The USFWS used Pittman Robertson funds (dollars from sporting goods sales meant to bolster opportiunities in states) to illegally plant wolves in Idaho, those wolves multiplied and some of their offspring are now eating Washington moose! :bash:
Post by: bearpaw on June 09, 2017, 02:02:35 PM
Maybe it's just an oversight by some wilderness pushers? Some I know don't care, but removing roads really puts all hunters with any type of physical restriction at a significant disadvantage. I'm not saying we need to start making new roads, let's just stop taking access away from people. There are 22 wilderness areas in Washington, that is enough! We have countless other unroaded areas that also provide many opportunities to get away from the road system.How much packing business do you do?
FYI - My business would benefit by removing roads, more people would need pack in services, but I don't beleive it's right to take away access from the majority of the public users! :twocents:
How much of your hunting in this state is done on public land? I realize you probably don't have an exact ratio, but would you say half or 3/4 or 1/4 of your outfitting is done on public land?
The map that Kentrek provided makes a clear and concise statement on the amount of wilderness areas in this state. There may be 22 wilderness areas in this state but how many of those are of any significance in size? How many of those 22 are just one connected to another? Think the Henry M Jackson Wilderness and the Wild Sky Wilderness. They're almost the same area west of the crest.
I'm not pushing for more wilderness. I'm fine with what we have now. What I don't want is what public land we do have that is not designated wilderness to be more and more chopped up with roads. I also don't want 4 wheelers bombing all over wherever they want.
There are places in the central Cascades where it's hard enough to get a mile from a road...nevermind miles and miles. Those places suck to hunt if you ask me, and they're littered with people who pay no attention to gates and run their quads and dirtbikes wherever they feel like.
I see no reason any atv or utv should not be able to go on any mountain road that any other motorized vehicle is allowed. Funny how certain people want to prevent the people who live in an area from being able to ride on roads where they live! I do not support offroad riding and fully understand and agree with preventing offroad riding except in designated areas for that purpose such as the motorized trail system east of Colville for motorcycles. There are people who even want to shut that down.
I have no problem with not adding new roads on public lands, I have a problem with removing existing roads from public lands in NE Washington or any other area where the majority of people benefit from having access! I also have a problem with green groups stopping logging and grazing and handicapping rural communities incomes and lifestyles. I've read your rants about being categorized, this is the reason you see E WA people complaining about coasters! For the most part we are tired of groups who mostly live in other areas controlling our access, incomes, and lifestyle! I'm not here to tell you what to do in the cascades, I don't live or work there, the people who live there know what they want.
If Conservation Northwest and their partner Backcountry Hunters have their way a huge portion of Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Orielle counties will become roadless wilderness. Because I'm afraid these green groups continually seem to win I have already positioned myself to benefit. Currently my horseback business is active in Idaho and sometimes I use horses for Utah hunts. I am permitted in Washington but have not been providing horseback hunts in WA, if the green groups don't somehow get horses outlawed (many of them would like to do that too) I could greatly benefit financially if the green lobby gets their way. Many hunters wanting to hunt the Kettle Crest, Abercrombie, Sullivan lake areas will need packed in after the roads are removed or they will have to share the even more crowded public lands that are still accessible.
Yes, I could benefit by more wilderness, but it would be at the cost of the average hunter and many other forest users. Most of my family, friends, and neighbors would all lose opportunity if the green lobby gets their way! Anyone who is not in top physical condition will lose a great deal of opportunity. Sadly, the green lobby could careless about all those thousands of people who will lose opportunity!
Post by: bearpaw on June 09, 2017, 02:18:06 PM
Here's an example of the wilderness area taking over.....wilderness is everything in blue.... so like I asked....whose more important ??
42.9% of WA is public land for public use. That means the general public does not have access to 47.1% of Washington, it's private land. Comparing total public lands (bottom) to unroaded public lands (top) clearly shows there is a huge percentage that's already roadless. Only a small percentage of forest users benefit from the roadless, the majority of the public lose access. To want more roadless, especially considering much of the roadless is already underused, to me screams of sheer greed and lack of compassion for others. I'm sorry but that's what it says to me!
http://publiclandsinventory.wa.gov/#Map
Post by: KFhunter on June 09, 2017, 02:19:23 PM
Post by: theleo on June 09, 2017, 02:31:08 PM
The romance people like that for a "pristine" wilderness is so misplaced it's depressing. I'd personally love some commercial activity in a lot of the wilderness areas I've been in. Log them via helicopter, graze them in the summer, and light it on fire at the end of October. After a couple years of that the logging and grazing could be reduced or eliminated. The state of a lot of wilderness forests are in a sad state from our protection. Forest management and wolf management have the same issue, management from the "heart" not the head.Maybe it's just an oversight by some wilderness pushers? Some I know don't care, but removing roads really puts all hunters with any type of physical restriction at a significant disadvantage. I'm not saying we need to start making new roads, let's just stop taking access away from people. There are 22 wilderness areas in Washington, that is enough! We have countless other unroaded areas that also provide many opportunities to get away from the road system.How much packing business do you do?
FYI - My business would benefit by removing roads, more people would need pack in services, but I don't beleive it's right to take away access from the majority of the public users! :twocents:
How much of your hunting in this state is done on public land? I realize you probably don't have an exact ratio, but would you say half or 3/4 or 1/4 of your outfitting is done on public land?
The map that Kentrek provided makes a clear and concise statement on the amount of wilderness areas in this state. There may be 22 wilderness areas in this state but how many of those are of any significance in size? How many of those 22 are just one connected to another? Think the Henry M Jackson Wilderness and the Wild Sky Wilderness. They're almost the same area west of the crest.
I'm not pushing for more wilderness. I'm fine with what we have now. What I don't want is what public land we do have that is not designated wilderness to be more and more chopped up with roads. I also don't want 4 wheelers bombing all over wherever they want.
There are places in the central Cascades where it's hard enough to get a mile from a road...nevermind miles and miles. Those places suck to hunt if you ask me, and they're littered with people who pay no attention to gates and run their quads and dirtbikes wherever they feel like.
I have no problem with not adding new roads on public lands, I have a problem with removing existing roads from public lands in NE Washington or any other area where the majority of people benefit from having access! I also have a problem with green groups stopping logging and grazing and handicapping rural communities incomes and lifestyles. I've read your rants about being categorized, this is the reason you see E WA people complaining about coasters! For the most part we are tired of groups who mostly live in other areas controlling our access, incomes, and lifestyle! I'm not here to tell you what to do in the cascades, I don't live or work there, the people who live there know what they want.
If Conservation Northwest and their partner Backcountry Hunters have their way a huge portion of Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Orielle counties will become roadless wilderness. Because I'm afraid these green groups continually seem to win I have already positioned myself to benefit. Currently my horseback business is active in Idaho and sometimes I use horses for Utah hunts. I am permitted in Washington but have not been providing horseback hunts in WA, if the green groups don't somehow get horses outlawed (many of them would like to do that too) I could greatly benefit financially if the green lobby gets their way. Many hunters wanting to hunt the Kettle Crest, Abercrombie, Sullivan lake areas will need packed in after the roads are removed or they will have to share the even more crowded public lands that are still accessible.
Post by: grundy53 on June 09, 2017, 03:16:32 PM
To me, this thread and the resulting comments are more about people labeling others just because of differing views. Some hate wolves, some don't mind them and some love them. If you're not in the wolf haters club, you're labeled a lover. It happens. It's happened to me. It's happened to the guy who started this thread and now it's going to happen to the guy from WI.To be fair, the OP labeled himself a wolf lover. Read the title of this thread...
That is unfortunate.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on June 09, 2017, 03:20:19 PM
Comparing Alaska to Washington is comparing apples to oranges. Alaska has a hell of a lot less roads then we do. In most of Washington If the wolves push the elk away from one road they are pushing them closer to another.What you're missing is---> Wolves make it much harder to kill elk from the road...mic drop.
There appears to be a split on this issue. Just talked to a buddy in Alaska over the lunch hour. He's been up there 30 years and hunts every season. He thought the idea that wolves push animals closer to roads was complete nonsense. He said it's the exact opposite, that they dig in even deeper and further away from other animals including man.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: KFhunter on June 09, 2017, 03:22:47 PM
:dunno:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 09, 2017, 03:33:33 PM
Post by: kentrek on June 09, 2017, 05:25:42 PM
Here's an example of the wilderness area taking over.....wilderness is everything in blue.... so like I asked....whose more important ??
42.9% of WA is public land for public use. That means the general public does not have access to 47.1% of Washington, it's private land. Comparing total public lands (bottom) to unroaded public lands (top) clearly shows there is a huge percentage that's already roadless. Only a small percentage of forest users benefit from the roadless, the majority of the public lose access. To want more roadless, especially considering much of the roadless is already underused, to me screams of sheer greed and lack of compassion for others. I'm sorry but that's what it says to me!
http://publiclandsinventory.wa.gov/#Map
That demographic is not including the tree farms that are private but also open to public for a trespass fee....there is huge amounts of land open to the public that have oodles of roads....
I doubt we disagree as much as it comes off, we both agree everyone needs to have a place to go....we can't trust the majority with these issues....just as we can't trust the majority with choosing a president (which I'm sure we can agree on there) but it applys to game & land management too....whats best for the majority is not always what's best for all
Post by: bearpaw on June 09, 2017, 05:53:18 PM
Here's an example of the wilderness area taking over.....wilderness is everything in blue.... so like I asked....whose more important ??
42.9% of WA is public land for public use. That means the general public does not have access to 47.1% of Washington, it's private land. Comparing total public lands (bottom) to unroaded public lands (top) clearly shows there is a huge percentage that's already roadless. Only a small percentage of forest users benefit from the roadless, the majority of the public lose access. To want more roadless, especially considering much of the roadless is already underused, to me screams of sheer greed and lack of compassion for others. I'm sorry but that's what it says to me!
http://publiclandsinventory.wa.gov/#Map
That demographic is not including the tree farms that are private but also open to public for a trespass fee....there is huge amounts of land open to the public that have oodles of roads....
I doubt we disagree as much as it comes off, we both agree everyone needs to have a place to go....we can't trust the majority with these issues....just as we can't trust the majority with choosing a president (which I'm sure we can agree on there) but it applys to game & land management too....whats best for the majority is not always what's best for all
I think mostly we disagree on this and similar topics, and that's OK, no two people agree on everything anyway. :tup:
Just so we are clear, I'm not advocating reducing roadless areas, we need to keep our roadless areas, but we also need to keep accessible areas for the masses. I'm talking public lands, that is what the public has control over, we don't have a right to tell private land owners how they must manage their lands. I compared a map of all public land to your map of roadless areas, it's very clear a large percentage of public lands are roadless. So you are saying the majority of the public who by most accounts already over use current roaded areas should lose more opportunity so the minority can have even more roadless areas (much of which has little use)?
roadless areas (top)
all public lands (bottom)
Post by: kentrek on June 09, 2017, 06:43:54 PM
Because we are losing our voting power with the experiences people get with today's recreaction hunting
Post by: buglebrush on June 09, 2017, 09:10:36 PM
Your comparing public lands in general and I'm comparing lands available to hunt which is what we should be comparing I'd think ....your saying if I'm pro wilderness then I must be anti access but you get to be pro access with out being anti wilderness.....we can agree to disagree and that's fine... the less pressured areas feed the pressured areas, it's pretty simple...i know we need some more less pressured areas..maybe that's not the case in the north east...but whether it's more walk in, more hunter distrabution, or less tags (last option)...i think it's the direction we need to go regardless if it's what's best for the majority
Because we are losing our voting power with the experiences people get with today's recreaction hunting
Problem is that those private timber lands are only available to a limited amount of people, and for a substantial fee. Too big a fee for most people.
I hunt exclusively roadless and Wilderness areas myself. I much prefer that type of hunting, but I am with Dale here. We are physically fit and able, but most people aren't. My grandpa can hardly walk anymore and good options for hunting are far more limited than mine. Some day that will be you and I.
:twocents:
Post by: Special T on June 09, 2017, 10:31:21 PM
In Alaska you can hop in a tundra buggy and wheel all over the place. The Alaskan version of off roading has no comparison. Go off the road here and all he'll breaks loose!Comparing Alaska to Washington is comparing apples to oranges. Alaska has a hell of a lot less roads then we do. In most of Washington If the wolves push the elk away from one road they are pushing them closer to another.What you're missing is---> Wolves make it much harder to kill elk from the road...mic drop.
There appears to be a split on this issue. Just talked to a buddy in Alaska over the lunch hour. He's been up there 30 years and hunts every season. He thought the idea that wolves push animals closer to roads was complete nonsense. He said it's the exact opposite, that they dig in even deeper and further away from other animals including man.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: wolfbait on June 10, 2017, 10:22:12 AM
As a side note, I can't help but mention the irony in showing me pictures of wolf kills as if it's evidence that wolves should be banned.
That's the exact same tactic used by the anti-hunting crowd: they post photos of a gutted and half-butchered animal and accuse us all of being savages who should be banned.
The pictures I posted are facts, the only thing wolves have done since they were introduced is kill ungulates and livestock. Can you name any benefits the wolves have added to WA etc..?
If you don't like to see what wolves are really about, then you started the wrong thread.
Post by: wolfbait on June 10, 2017, 10:26:42 AM
So you start a thread saying "I love wolves. Seriously", admit you know little about it, but then get upset when people who know this party well get upset.
This is why people assumed you were a troll.
People on a hunting Washington forum have hunting in this state in common. Short story is that opportunities are reduced with wolves. Money is spent to reduce our opportunity.
That makes some people angry. The fix isn't about grazing rights, increasing skill set as a hunter if elk have been reduced in your area and you can't find them, or..............
But then, I have to stop and remind myself I'm wasting my time trying to explain. :twocents:
Expanding further on this:
The USFWS used Pittman Robertson funds (dollars from sporting goods sales meant to bolster opportiunities in states) to illegally plant wolves in Idaho, those wolves multiplied and some of their offspring are now eating Washington moose! :bash:
On top of stealing the money to introduce the wolves, the USFWS dump wolves on a native species that were already expanding naturally.
Post by: wolfbait on June 10, 2017, 10:37:30 AM
Maybe it's just an oversight by some wilderness pushers? Some I know don't care, but removing roads really puts all hunters with any type of physical restriction at a significant disadvantage. I'm not saying we need to start making new roads, let's just stop taking access away from people. There are 22 wilderness areas in Washington, that is enough! We have countless other unroaded areas that also provide many opportunities to get away from the road system.How much packing business do you do?
FYI - My business would benefit by removing roads, more people would need pack in services, but I don't beleive it's right to take away access from the majority of the public users! :twocents:
How much of your hunting in this state is done on public land? I realize you probably don't have an exact ratio, but would you say half or 3/4 or 1/4 of your outfitting is done on public land?
The map that Kentrek provided makes a clear and concise statement on the amount of wilderness areas in this state. There may be 22 wilderness areas in this state but how many of those are of any significance in size? How many of those 22 are just one connected to another? Think the Henry M Jackson Wilderness and the Wild Sky Wilderness. They're almost the same area west of the crest.
I'm not pushing for more wilderness. I'm fine with what we have now. What I don't want is what public land we do have that is not designated wilderness to be more and more chopped up with roads. I also don't want 4 wheelers bombing all over wherever they want.
There are places in the central Cascades where it's hard enough to get a mile from a road...nevermind miles and miles. Those places suck to hunt if you ask me, and they're littered with people who pay no attention to gates and run their quads and dirtbikes wherever they feel like.
I see no reason any atv or utv should not be able to go on any mountain road that any other motorized vehicle is allowed. Funny how certain people want to prevent the people who live in an area from being able to ride on roads where they live! I do not support offroad riding and fully understand and agree with preventing offroad riding except in designated areas for that purpose such as the motorized trail system east of Colville for motorcycles. There are people who even want to shut that down.
I have no problem with not adding new roads on public lands, I have a problem with removing existing roads from public lands in NE Washington or any other area where the majority of people benefit from having access! I also have a problem with green groups stopping logging and grazing and handicapping rural communities incomes and lifestyles. I've read your rants about being categorized, this is the reason you see E WA people complaining about coasters! For the most part we are tired of groups who mostly live in other areas controlling our access, incomes, and lifestyle! I'm not here to tell you what to do in the cascades, I don't live or work there, the people who live there know what they want.
If Conservation Northwest and their partner Backcountry Hunters have their way a huge portion of Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Orielle counties will become roadless wilderness. Because I'm afraid these green groups continually seem to win I have already positioned myself to benefit. Currently my horseback business is active in Idaho and sometimes I use horses for Utah hunts. I am permitted in Washington but have not been providing horseback hunts in WA, if the green groups don't somehow get horses outlawed (many of them would like to do that too) I could greatly benefit financially if the green lobby gets their way. Many hunters wanting to hunt the Kettle Crest, Abercrombie, Sullivan lake areas will need packed in after the roads are removed or they will have to share the even more crowded public lands that are still accessible.
Yes, I could benefit by more wilderness, but it would be at the cost of the average hunter and many other forest users. Most of my family, friends, and neighbors would all lose opportunity if the green lobby gets their way! Anyone who is not in top physical condition will lose a great deal of opportunity. Sadly, the green lobby could careless about all those thousands of people who will lose opportunity!
I wonder has it ever occurred to anyone that the environmental groups push the USFWS, USFS, etc. policies, making huge profits through grants, and suing etc.? So in reality it really isn't the environmental groups that are to blame they are just take taking heat for profit.
Same as the natural conservancy buys up land and then sells it for a huge profit to the feds, this way it doesn't look like the feds are buying up so much land.
I think it's what is described as fake environmental groups.
Post by: bearpaw on June 10, 2017, 10:46:26 AM
Your comparing public lands in general and I'm comparing lands available to hunt which is what we should be comparing I'd think ....your saying if I'm pro wilderness then I must be anti access but you get to be pro access with out being anti wilderness.....we can agree to disagree and that's fine... the less pressured areas feed the pressured areas, it's pretty simple...i know we need some more less pressured areas..maybe that's not the case in the north east...but whether it's more walk in, more hunter distrabution, or less tags (last option)...i think it's the direction we need to go regardless if it's what's best for the majority
Because we are losing our voting power with the experiences people get with today's recreaction hunting
You do not and should not have control over private lands. It's up to the private landowner if they choose to build roads or even allow access!
The public has rightful control and access to public owned lands. I showed that a huge percentage of public ownership is already roadless, the roadless crowd who are pushing for more roadless are trying to give the majority of users the shaft, TAKE AWAY FROM THE MAJORITY TO BENEFIT A FEW, nothing less than that!
I guess we will have to agree to disagree, no hard feelings, just a difference of opinions, I certainly will never agree with benefiting a few by taking opportunity away from the majority of users!
My apologies to the OP for hijacking the topic!
Post by: KFhunter on June 10, 2017, 11:18:06 AM
Yakimanoob you say you love wolves. You have heard a lot of reasons why some of the hunters have a dislike for them. Mainly because it severely curtails hunting opportunities. Tell us why you love this creature as stated. Do you not feel a threat to you right to hunt or your chance of harvesting an animal? When you create such a controversial topic on a hunting forum you have to expect a backlash. It might not have such a hot button as if you said I love grizzlies, seriously. I think you will find that if you were a serious hunter that hunts multiple states there is going to be opposition to your view because of the jeopardy to serious hunters resource.I will say again that I have never challenged the idea that they're a threat to hunting opportunities. I love them because they're amazing, intelligent creatures. But that doesn't mean I think they should be in Washington or that there should be more of them in Washington or that they should be protected as endangered. Again, my goal in posting the question was to learn why people seem to hate the animals themselves. I'm not nearly educated enough on the topic to debate their presence in our state.
If you're curious, I'm learning two major points by reading through the responses here:
1) There is a tremendous amount of political anger and offense at how these animals were re-introduced and are managed. I'm struck by the comments calling the introduction illegal and the idea of this being part of a larger anti-hunting agenda. It's not hard for me to see how easy it must be for people in Washington to go from feeling slighted, or maybe even abused, by their own government to hating the creatures at the center of that abuse. I'm also learning that those who actually hate the wolves themselves are definitely the minority, and I only got the impression people hate the creatures because of the intensity of the anger over the situation.
2) It seems the overall quality of conversation about the subject has degenerated to the level typical of political conversations today. Those who disagree with you must be idiots or have some sinister motive that threatens your lifestyle. Anyone who doesn't automatically agree with you must be your enemy and you'd rather them not speak. I'm still chuckling at the comment about needing smacked upside the head and having my nose shoved in the mud, as if that would result in me seeing your side of the argument. Banning people from the forum, accusing them of being dishonest, or otherwise lashing back at them is, if nothing else, an exceptionally ineffective way of convincing someone that they should change their mind. That's the way you make enemies, not allies.
And this is what seems the highest shame of this thread. I'm a hunter and I'd like to see our rights and opportunities protected. But we live in a republic, and the only hope we have to protect our rights is to ensure we have enough popular support to maintain those rights. The minute we offend the majority is the minute we forfeit our rights. So please, quit picking fights with people who disagree with you, and work to bridge the gap instead of widening it.
It looks as if you've found your answer. We've debated this for years on hunting-washington and most have come to the realization that "wolves will be wolves", there's no point or purpose to hating them for being what they are, my focus is shining the light those who forced them upon us and what the real nature of the wolf is to those who are primarily educated by ©Disney and various pro-wolf propaganda.
Post by: bearpaw on June 10, 2017, 01:28:41 PM
Yakimanoob you say you love wolves. You have heard a lot of reasons why some of the hunters have a dislike for them. Mainly because it severely curtails hunting opportunities. Tell us why you love this creature as stated. Do you not feel a threat to you right to hunt or your chance of harvesting an animal? When you create such a controversial topic on a hunting forum you have to expect a backlash. It might not have such a hot button as if you said I love grizzlies, seriously. I think you will find that if you were a serious hunter that hunts multiple states there is going to be opposition to your view because of the jeopardy to serious hunters resource.I will say again that I have never challenged the idea that they're a threat to hunting opportunities. I love them because they're amazing, intelligent creatures. But that doesn't mean I think they should be in Washington or that there should be more of them in Washington or that they should be protected as endangered. Again, my goal in posting the question was to learn why people seem to hate the animals themselves. I'm not nearly educated enough on the topic to debate their presence in our state.
If you're curious, I'm learning two major points by reading through the responses here:
1) There is a tremendous amount of political anger and offense at how these animals were re-introduced and are managed. I'm struck by the comments calling the introduction illegal and the idea of this being part of a larger anti-hunting agenda. It's not hard for me to see how easy it must be for people in Washington to go from feeling slighted, or maybe even abused, by their own government to hating the creatures at the center of that abuse. I'm also learning that those who actually hate the wolves themselves are definitely the minority, and I only got the impression people hate the creatures because of the intensity of the anger over the situation.
2) It seems the overall quality of conversation about the subject has degenerated to the level typical of political conversations today. Those who disagree with you must be idiots or have some sinister motive that threatens your lifestyle. Anyone who doesn't automatically agree with you must be your enemy and you'd rather them not speak. I'm still chuckling at the comment about needing smacked upside the head and having my nose shoved in the mud, as if that would result in me seeing your side of the argument. Banning people from the forum, accusing them of being dishonest, or otherwise lashing back at them is, if nothing else, an exceptionally ineffective way of convincing someone that they should change their mind. That's the way you make enemies, not allies.
And this is what seems the highest shame of this thread. I'm a hunter and I'd like to see our rights and opportunities protected. But we live in a republic, and the only hope we have to protect our rights is to ensure we have enough popular support to maintain those rights. The minute we offend the majority is the minute we forfeit our rights. So please, quit picking fights with people who disagree with you, and work to bridge the gap instead of widening it.
It looks as if you've found your answer. We've debated this for years on hunting-washington and most have come to the realization that "wolves will be wolves", there's no point or purpose to hating them for being what they are, my focus is shining the light those who forced them upon us and what the real nature of the wolf is to those who are primarily educated by ©Disney and various pro-wolf propaganda.
FYI - Very few people are actually banned from this forum, we have a strict policy of adhering to the rules regarding bans. Almost nobody is permanently banned, only in the most extreme cases, and usually only after multiple shorter bans for breaking forum rules.
Post by: Dan-o on June 10, 2017, 04:27:41 PM
I do hope that you've taken form this thread that most "wolf hatred" is actually hatred of the dishonest people who brought back wolves.
Had they been honest and decent (kept to their word about the number of wolves they required) then I suspect that many people would feel differently.
But when you look at the way they've systematically lied to get more and more wolves (or for that matter, when you look at the Wa plan that does nothing to protect the livelihoods of those in the NE corner until enough are documented in other regions) it's a lot easier to just want no wolves.
Post by: wolfbait on June 10, 2017, 07:37:14 PM
Yamikanoob,
I do hope that you've taken form this thread that most "wolf hatred" is actually hatred of the dishonest people who brought back wolves.
Had they been honest and decent (kept to their word about the number of wolves they required) then I suspect that many people would feel differently.
But when you look at the way they've systematically lied to get more and more wolves (or for that matter, when you look at the Wa plan that does nothing to protect the livelihoods of those in the NE corner until enough are documented in other regions) it's a lot easier to just want no wolves.
Well Put :yeah:
I would add it just isn't the NE corner of WA that has and is taking a beating from wolves, at this point many ranchers will not call WDFW if they have wolf problems.
Post by: bearpaw on June 10, 2017, 07:52:28 PM
Yamikanoob,
I do hope that you've taken form this thread that most "wolf hatred" is actually hatred of the dishonest people who brought back wolves.
Had they been honest and decent (kept to their word about the number of wolves they required) then I suspect that many people would feel differently.
But when you look at the way they've systematically lied to get more and more wolves (or for that matter, when you look at the Wa plan that does nothing to protect the livelihoods of those in the NE corner until enough are documented in other regions) it's a lot easier to just want no wolves.
:yeah: I absolutely agree!
In Idaho where wolves are now managed game herds are rebuilding, I have no issue with sharing the mountains with a managed population of wolves. But you simply cannot trust these agencies or wolf groups. USFWS illegally used sportsman dollars to plant wolves in Idaho and the former Idaho F&G director went against state legislated law by signing the permit for USFWS to plant the wolves in Idaho. It's the agencies and wolf groups that are the real problem! You cannot trust them!
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 11, 2017, 11:37:00 AM
Don't drink the Stevens county cattleman's Kool aid.
Post by: bearpaw on June 11, 2017, 12:59:39 PM
@bearpaw your comment about CNW being "partners" with BHA is bulI$hi+. We haven't talked about wilderness in the Kettles for years, and when we did try to add wilderness in NE is was ALWAYS with support from timber industry and in areas that were not going to impact grazing alottments. You could have participated at any time (I remember inviting you) and you didn't.
Don't drink the Stevens county cattleman's Kool aid.
I think you are a good guy and I think you want to do what you think is best. But there are connections that you may not even know about! It's not that I want to take away any roadless areas, I'm just tired of the never ending expansion of roadless areas, the roadless crowd will never have enough!
BHA and CNW had Vaagens by the short hair, Vaagens had no choice but to go along to get any scraps you might allow them, they have to try and keep the mill running. I will not be a part of such a blackmail racket! Just because most people did not participate does not mean they agree, it's mostly because they were opposed! The local majority is opposed to more wilderness!
I remember looking into a job position with Back Country Hunters that at first sounded interesting, that was before I really knew who they were or what they were after, on the surface they sounded like a good group, it boiled down to they were looking for a paid employee to lobby USFS and local industry to get more wilderness! As soon as I started asking hard questions I never heard from them again! When I realized the real narrative of BHA I was glad I did not get involved and I fully understood why they never responded.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 11, 2017, 02:03:45 PM
BHA has pushed for more logging on the Colville (from 30m bd ft to 80m bd ft) and has worked to make the South end motorized use project a possibility. You probably don't know as much about BHA as you think.
Post by: bearpaw on June 11, 2017, 02:50:46 PM
I don't suppose you know who got that position?? He was an outfitter and a former logging company owner, that works in lg sales still and is an active member of BHA.
BHA has pushed for more logging on the Colville (from 30m bd ft to 80m bd ft) and has worked to make the South end motorized use project a possibility. You probably don't know as much about BHA as you think.
Yes, I remember hearing who took the job but I didn't know the person and at that point had decided I wanted nothing to do with BHA. I do realize that as control of an organization changes over time that the goals of the organization might change. For example years ago I donated hunting trips to help support RMEF, then they started going green and turned into more of a preservationist org than a supporter of hunters, I quit donating hunts for 10 or 15 years. Since David Allen took over RMEF is on a much more hunter oriented pathway that I have again supported.
What you stated sounds like a good direction, have they quit wanting to convert big portions of NE WA to wilderness? That in itself is the most important issue, is BHA just maneuvering to get their ultimate goal of more wilderness by feeding a little timber to the sawmills now?
Please keep in mind, I fully support keeping all our old growth and all our current roadless public lands, I'm opposed to the never ending feeding frenzy for more wilderness!
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 11, 2017, 06:05:12 PM
BHA was not a part if the collaboration when the Kettles and all of the Abcrombie hooknose areas were proposed. We joined when those areas were already on the maps and were supportive because we were part if the collaboration. Don't get the idea that it was BHA that asked for the universe with the original proposal
Post by: buglebrush on June 11, 2017, 06:59:04 PM
The only wilderness option right now (and it's not an option politically at all) is a 13k acre expansion on the Salmo Priest, but it's already designated roadless and managed as de facto wilderness... So it's a moot point and we are not going to burn social capital on it.
BHA was not a part if the collaboration when the Kettles and all of the Abcrombie hooknose areas were proposed. We joined when those areas were already on the maps and were supportive because we were part if the collaboration. Don't get the idea that it was BHA that asked for the universe with the original proposal
Not a moot point at all! Maybe someday it could've been logged. The Salmo Priest Wilderness supports less animals all the time. If BHA gets there desires we will have to depend solely on forest fires, and with the overabundance of fuel those fires will probably sterilize the soil.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 11, 2017, 09:32:37 PM
Put into context, 13k acres doesn't mean anything to this industrial forest. The value of the logs on that land can/should be made up for elsewhere.
Depend solely on forest fires for what?
Post by: yakimanoob on June 11, 2017, 10:50:18 PM
It looks as if you've found your answer. We've debated this for years on hunting-washington and most have come to the realization that "wolves will be wolves", there's no point or purpose to hating them for being what they are, my focus is shining the light those who forced them upon us and what the real nature of the wolf is to those who are primarily educated by ©Disney and various pro-wolf propaganda.
Yamikanoob,
I do hope that you've taken form this thread that most "wolf hatred" is actually hatred of the dishonest people who brought back wolves.
Had they been honest and decent (kept to their word about the number of wolves they required) then I suspect that many people would feel differently.
But when you look at the way they've systematically lied to get more and more wolves (or for that matter, when you look at the Wa plan that does nothing to protect the livelihoods of those in the NE corner until enough are documented in other regions) it's a lot easier to just want no wolves.
I do have my answer, KFhunter, and, Dan-o, that's exactly the realization I've had reading the thoughful discussion on this thread. Thanks again to everyone who took the time to read and comment -- I know it got a little hairy at times, but such is the nature of the discussion I suppose. I really have learned a lot.
No need for an apology on the side-track, bearpaw. Public/roadless/wilderness lands is a really interesting topic I'm only recently starting to research, so I've enjoyed reading the back-and-forth. Coming from Alabama where we have very very little public land and even less wilderness, it certainly seems to me that WA is rich with wilderness areas and I would have a hard time understanding why we should remove more roads. But I totally get the point of reducing pressure on the animals, especially during winter/birthing times. Like I said, an interesting subject!
Post by: yakimanoob on June 11, 2017, 10:57:03 PM
I think you misunderstood my point, wolfbait. I don't mind seeing photos of wolf kills. And I maintain my position of ignorance on whether or not wolves have provided any benefit. The damages and challenges they pose are obvious; I have never disputed them.As a side note, I can't help but mention the irony in showing me pictures of wolf kills as if it's evidence that wolves should be banned.
That's the exact same tactic used by the anti-hunting crowd: they post photos of a gutted and half-butchered animal and accuse us all of being savages who should be banned.
The pictures I posted are facts, the only thing wolves have done since they were introduced is kill ungulates and livestock. Can you name any benefits the wolves have added to WA etc..?
If you don't like to see what wolves are really about, then you started the wrong thread.
I know that wolves are predators, just as I am a predator. You may all have been more offended by the sloppy job I did skinning and field dressing my elk than you are at wolf kill pics. Both situations are gruesome, but their visceral quality has no bearing on my opinions.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 12, 2017, 05:41:28 AM
Post by: wolfbait on June 13, 2017, 07:51:25 AM
Well we thoroughly exhausted this topic.
Nine years of BS from the pro-wolfers, and most people have the reasons behind wolves figured out, those who pretend wolves are a good thing, support the agenda of no hunting etc..
Post by: 2MANY on June 13, 2017, 08:09:25 AM
Post by: Special T on June 13, 2017, 11:53:57 AM
and drive Subaru's.Pound sand. Look up the pic of my Bratt on here I rocked for a long time. They are awesome hunting rigs!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Seahawk12 on June 13, 2017, 12:16:00 PM
The outback is a great vehicle. I drove one to Colorado a few years ago to ski and made my way through a massive winter storm. I can't tell you how many vehicles lost traction while my outback handled all of it great.and drive Subaru's.Pound sand. Look up the pic of my Bratt on here I rocked for a long time. They are awesome hunting rigs!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
I've taken it up into some pretty rough areas and never had any kind of issues.
Good fuel economy.
Holds its resale value.
Very easy to drive.
Stays on the road better than many.
Handles a wide variety of terrain well.
I like ours.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 13, 2017, 12:38:45 PM
So far most of the BS and stupid predictions have came from the wildly anti wolf folks here (you) including the big lawsuit you had planned, the decimation of elk populations w/in ten years, and the end of hunting in WA state. You guys were wrong.Well we thoroughly exhausted this topic.
Nine years of BS from the pro-wolfers, and most people have the reasons behind wolves figured out, those who pretend wolves are a good thing, support the agenda of no hunting etc..
Wolves are just another piece of wildlife, when they are recovered we need to manage them. Eliminating them isn't an option.
Post by: elkboy on June 13, 2017, 01:10:01 PM
Not a moot point at all! Maybe someday it could've been logged. The Salmo Priest Wilderness supports less animals all the time. If BHA gets there desires we will have to depend solely on forest fires, and with the overabundance of fuel those fires will probably sterilize the soil.
[/quote]
At one time in North America, deer and elk habitat did rely on forest and range fires. Even severe fire can be a great thing, and is usually variable enough to allow for all kinds of post-fire habitat to develop (from 0% tree mortality to 100% tree mortality). The fires of 1910 were incredibly severe and widespread, but the habitat they created still supported elk herds until late in the 20th century. Fire-created elk habitat lasts a lot longer than that created by industrial timber harvest. I wouldn't worry about soil sterilization holding back habitat development- if anything, it would prevent conifer establishment, and favor establishment by nitrogen-fixers like buck-brush. Deer and elk would certainly vote for that!
Post by: b0bbyg on June 13, 2017, 03:46:09 PM
So far most of the BS and stupid predictions have came from the wildly anti wolf folks here (you) including the big lawsuit you had planned, the decimation of elk populations w/in ten years, and the end of hunting in WA state. You guys were wrong.Well we thoroughly exhausted this topic.
Nine years of BS from the pro-wolfers, and most people have the reasons behind wolves figured out, those who pretend wolves are a good thing, support the agenda of no hunting etc..
Wolves are just another piece of wildlife, when they are recovered we need to manage them. Eliminating them isn't an option.
Eliminating them is an option just very unlikely in todays political climate. After all history does kind of indicate they were eliminated once before.
I will let others argue with you over the word "recovered"
Post by: gaddy on June 13, 2017, 04:31:22 PM
I had one that sided me at twenty yards until I got to the truck, where was the rest of the pack ? Did I get to enjoy my outing, No.
Am I now worried about taking my dogs for a walk in the woods that I have been going to for years ? Do I worry about grand children wandering around as my kids did ? Where did my quality of life go.
I understand the odds but, as far as I'm concerned, Kill them all. I don't need them and I don't think they are good for Washington.
Post by: JakeLand on June 13, 2017, 08:25:23 PM
So far most of the BS and stupid predictions have came from the wildly anti wolf folks here (you) including the big lawsuit you had planned, the decimation of elk populations w/in ten years, and the end of hunting in WA state. You guys were wrong.Well we thoroughly exhausted this topic.
Nine years of BS from the pro-wolfers, and most people have the reasons behind wolves figured out, those who pretend wolves are a good thing, support the agenda of no hunting etc..
Wolves are just another piece of wildlife, when they are recovered we need to manage them. Eliminating them isn't an option.
Wolves in Washington is one of the most stupid moves this state has made ! Now let's add grizzlies to the mix
Post by: wolfbait on June 14, 2017, 03:41:15 PM
So far most of the BS and stupid predictions have came from the wildly anti wolf folks here (you) including the big lawsuit you had planned, the decimation of elk populations w/in ten years, and the end of hunting in WA state. You guys were wrong.Well we thoroughly exhausted this topic.
Nine years of BS from the pro-wolfers, and most people have the reasons behind wolves figured out, those who pretend wolves are a good thing, support the agenda of no hunting etc..
Wolves are just another piece of wildlife, when they are recovered we need to manage them. Eliminating them isn't an option.
Thanks for setting everyone straight Wacoyote :rolleyes:
You seem to always jump to the stupidity of elimination, when you know as well as many that killing half of them would be just about impossible without poisons, areal gunning etc. while WDFW crap their pants and run the other way when wolves are caught killing livestock.
I wonder if you could give us a hint on how long it will be before wolves in WA will be recovered? You do know that ID, MT, and Wyoming were eligible for delisting in 6 years. Here it is 15 years later and WA STILL does not have enough wolves to delist according to WDFW efforts.
We weren't totally wrong Wacoyote, we just had our dates a little short, wolves will be the end of hunting in WA. and as for management I will refer you to the paragraph above and the stupidity of elimination.
You know that you and the rest of the pro-wolfers won the wolf battle in WA with the bogus wolf plan, and the lack of confirming wolves unless forced to do so. My question to you is, why do you continue to pack water for those who lied and are still lying about wolves. Seems kind of stupid to keep jumping up and down on your junk when most people by now realize that bring the wolves in was not for the good of anyone or anything, but instead to end hunting and get livestock off public lands.
You need to get away from your motherly protection of WDF&Wolves.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 17, 2017, 09:16:37 PM
What is anyone lying about? And where are you seeing me defend them? I haven't said anything about wolves being good for things, but I'm also not saying that they are the end of the world.
You know that you and the rest of the pro-wolfers won the wolf battle in WA with the bogus wolf plan, and the lack of confirming wolves unless forced to do so. My question to you is, why do you continue to pack water for those who lied and are still lying about wolves. Seems kind of stupid to keep jumping up and down on your junk when most people by now realize that bring the wolves in was not for the good of anyone or anything, but instead to end hunting and get livestock off public lands.
You need to get away from your motherly protection of WDF&Wolves.
Are you still arguing that the WDFW "brought wolves in"? LOL
Post by: wolfbait on June 18, 2017, 06:23:24 AM
What is anyone lying about? And where are you seeing me defend them? I haven't said anything about wolves being good for things, but I'm also not saying that they are the end of the world.
You know that you and the rest of the pro-wolfers won the wolf battle in WA with the bogus wolf plan, and the lack of confirming wolves unless forced to do so. My question to you is, why do you continue to pack water for those who lied and are still lying about wolves. Seems kind of stupid to keep jumping up and down on your junk when most people by now realize that bring the wolves in was not for the good of anyone or anything, but instead to end hunting and get livestock off public lands.
You need to get away from your motherly protection of WDF&Wolves.
Are you still arguing that the WDFW "brought wolves in"? LOL
You are too funny Wacoyote, I can certainly see the resemblance between you and bill clinton... :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on June 18, 2017, 08:30:56 AM
They'll also make deer hunting on public lands a lot more difficult as the deer stack up on inaccessible private ag lands.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on June 18, 2017, 09:00:45 AM
Wolves aren't the end of the world, but they will be the end of moose hunting, OTC Elk, and cattle/sheep grazing on public lands -and more importantly- a lot of private lands.Moose are certainly on a decline, and wolves are a contributing factor, but it's no exactly accurate to place the blame on them. I'm curious to hear your predicted timeline for the end of public land grazing and OTC elk (which was even discussed before wolves were here).
They'll also make deer hunting on public lands a lot more difficult as the deer stack up on inaccessible private ag lands.
And I'm really curious (dubious) about your claim that we are going to lose private lands. Explain how that's going to happen???
you're the one making jokes- just answer the question.What is anyone lying about? And where are you seeing me defend them? I haven't said anything about wolves being good for things, but I'm also not saying that they are the end of the world.
You know that you and the rest of the pro-wolfers won the wolf battle in WA with the bogus wolf plan, and the lack of confirming wolves unless forced to do so. My question to you is, why do you continue to pack water for those who lied and are still lying about wolves. Seems kind of stupid to keep jumping up and down on your junk when most people by now realize that bring the wolves in was not for the good of anyone or anything, but instead to end hunting and get livestock off public lands.
You need to get away from your motherly protection of WDF&Wolves.
Are you still arguing that the WDFW "brought wolves in"? LOL
You are too funny Wacoyote, I can certainly see the resemblance between you and bill clinton... :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on June 18, 2017, 11:05:52 AM
Quote
Moose are certainly on a decline, and wolves are a contributing factor, but it's not exactly accurate to place the blame on them. None of this makes since, it doesn't add up.
I'm curious to hear your predicted timeline for the end of public land grazing and OTC elk (which was even discussed before wolves were here).
And I'm really curious (dubious) about your claim that we are going to lose private lands. Not sure I understand the question here, we aren't loosing public lands I never said that. Explain how that's going to happen???
Moose were in the rise in numbers until very recently, now they are on the decline and it corresponds directly to the wolf incline. I'm not sure how the argument can be made that wolves aren't to blame for this?
"wolves are a contributing factor" does not equal "wolves aren't to blame" so which is it?
Or are you stating that the amount the wolves contribute to the moose decline is over stated? How do you support that when the numbers state just the opposite?
I spend a lot of time with the moose in the winter months and I'm here to tell you that everywhere I see moose I see wolf scat with suspected moose hair in it. Last several winters I've seen many cows, and none of them had a calf at their side in wolf areas. Not. A. ONE!
So tell me how wolves aren't THE major contributing factor to the moose decline when a cow can't raise a calf? Especially when moose were on the rebound just prior to wolves showing up en masse?
Public land grazing is already on the decline and has been for years, it was on a decline prior to wolves and it's even further on the decline now. This is mostly due to government regulations making it too difficult to secure and establish large tracts of public land to graze. There's less available labor to build the required fences, install contractual upgrades to the lands (water, road work, cattle guards) and to adhere to intensive grazing management required in nearly all public graze contracts. It used to be that in free range areas it was your duty to fence cows out if you didn't want them in your garden, now it's the other way around. Not that I'm making a big deal of fencing cows off private lands as part of a contract but it is an example of how it's evolved.
I've tried to get into this myself but I can't build 4 miles of fence, install cattle guards and do all the necessary contractual requirements while holding a day job. That's fine, it's not my primary job or way of life, but if it were then the margin of profit to be had on public grazing is getting less and less feasible. Add wolves to this mix, loose some cows and the numbers just don't add up. It's too bad, grazing if done right adds a lot of value to the land and increases hunting opportunity. Everyone wants to talk about $1.50 AUM like it's some sort of freebee, it is not. The expense is in the details, the labor and all of the other stuff required of that contract.
What really burns my rear is that wolves are having such a big effect on PRIVATE grazing, the sheep farmers for instance (won't mention names as they've gotten death threats) lost many sheep to wolves even having been held up as great example of cooperative efforts between the livestock owner and wolf groups. They used all the fladery, range riders and worked very closely with WDFW and NGO groups - but all for naught. WDFW decided to eliminate wolves through contracted wildlife control, they shot a breeder female and all hell broke loose. The sheep farmers went from being on a pedestal and held up as an example of cooperation to scum of the earth welfare grazers over night (even though it was all private lands) and getting routine death threats. They did every thing "right", wolves will be wolves after all.
Even now, WDFW is making it harder to graze cattle with their mandatory wolf avoidance crap (even though proven ineffective), 3 animals must die before action is taken. And....they must be confirmed wolf depredation which is difficult at best.
Profanity peak wolves are in the news again right now, I'm curious - did you read the part where it says: "A range rider found the dead cow", that's what range riders do, they find and document dead cows. Keep in mind they're suppose to keep the wolves off cows but that isn't reality on the ground. Wolves kill in the night when range riders are present, they often find them in the morning when the wolves' bellies are full and birds are circling.
Post by: wolfbait on June 18, 2017, 05:56:31 PM
Wolves aren't the end of the world, but they will be the end of moose hunting, OTC Elk, and cattle/sheep grazing on public lands -and more importantly- a lot of private lands.Moose are certainly on a decline, and wolves are a contributing factor, but it's no exactly accurate to place the blame on them. I'm curious to hear your predicted timeline for the end of public land grazing and OTC elk (which was even discussed before wolves were here).
They'll also make deer hunting on public lands a lot more difficult as the deer stack up on inaccessible private ag lands.
And I'm really curious (dubious) about your claim that we are going to lose private lands. Explain how that's going to happen???you're the one making jokes- just answer the question.What is anyone lying about? And where are you seeing me defend them? I haven't said anything about wolves being good for things, but I'm also not saying that they are the end of the world.
You know that you and the rest of the pro-wolfers won the wolf battle in WA with the bogus wolf plan, and the lack of confirming wolves unless forced to do so. My question to you is, why do you continue to pack water for those who lied and are still lying about wolves. Seems kind of stupid to keep jumping up and down on your junk when most people by now realize that bring the wolves in was not for the good of anyone or anything, but instead to end hunting and get livestock off public lands.
You need to get away from your motherly protection of WDF&Wolves.
Are you still arguing that the WDFW "brought wolves in"? LOL
You are too funny Wacoyote, I can certainly see the resemblance between you and bill clinton... :chuckle: :chuckle:
I wasn't joking WAcoyote, As far as WDFW releasing wolves, we are way past any effort in holding them accountable, like one county commissioner stated, without video they would just lie out of it.
Post by: jmscon on June 18, 2017, 06:50:26 PM
No wolves there
Post by: idaho guy on June 19, 2017, 04:06:22 PM
Track? :chuckle: I've seen wolves. Multiple times. Had a wolf come right into our yard and try to get our dog. Have heard them howling more times than I can remember. Been followed off the mountain when packing meat with wolves howling all around me for hours. Have been on successful Wolf hunts. Have friends who trap them. Have had my best lion hound tore to shreds by wolves. Have found where they killed a whole string of deer, and never ate a bite, because they could run on top while the deer broke through. I'm a third generation Idahoan that has lived & hunted in this area for over 30 years. And yeah I've definitely seen tracks too. :sry:Wolves. These types of threads keep putting up by people who don't actually live in Wolf infested country, and don't know what they are taking about. It just gets tiresome. :sry:
Responses like this get tiresome as well. Where exactly is this wolf infested country you speak of? You ever even seen a track?
Elkinrut this is not an attack on you or your knowledge of Idaho but an explanation as to why you think wolves are no "big deal"
Elkinrut the reason you both live in the panhandle but have a very different opinion is bugle has lived and hunted in Idaho for 30 years and he said he is a 3rd generation Idahoan. I am willing to bet you moved here maybe 4-5 years ago? I don't remember elk ever just standing out in the open before wolves by the way. Idaho got after wolves in 2009 and then again(when allowed) and ever since 2011. I don't think you have seen great remote elk areas get decimated but most long time Idaho hunters have including me. The fish & game has done a great job and elk hunting in a lot of areas has come back and some areas never were really affected. After wolves got bad and infested more remote areas the elk moved closer to roads and into town and close by. The remote areas where you cant control wolves very well (think selway) may never come back to what they were. Its not that you cant hunt and trap these areas its the time factor of doing this enough to control a predator that can give birth twice a year to 6-8 or more new ones a year. The moose in unit 1 (not all areas but some of the best) have been hammered. I drew a one week late permit a few years ago and shot a dandy bull but what was sad was to see how few moose there was compared to the "good old days" So this is not about gee I killed a big bull wolves must not be that bad or if you just hunted harder you would have success. I have seen no real upside to wolves besides being able to hunt and trap them. Idaho was better off without them but I am willing to live with them since I have no choice. Before you ask I have seen a wolf track, heard wolves howl, called in and shot a wolf, had wolves come into our elk calls while bowhunting and my partner shot one with his bow, trapped a wolf which escaped and had half my buddies bear dogs killed by them. This is not critical of your ability as a hunter or that you know your way around some of the woods in Idaho it is just my opinion as to why you see wolves as no problem and don't understand why a lot of Idaho hunters hate them. I saw the bull you posted last year btw nice job! To the op just wait a few more years and I will bet you a hundred dollars you will also no longer "love" wolves. Check in with me in 2021 and get my address as to where to send the check!
Post by: idaho guy on June 19, 2017, 04:32:19 PM
Cattle are not an invasive or introduced species, they don't live in the woods year around seeking their own survival and propagation. They are a forest use item, like ATVs, fishing, logging and hunting.
I read a really interesting study about cattle grazing replacing the role of the huge herds of buffalo that used to range all over the plains of Montana. I agree 100% that environmentalist are hyped up radicals that spend limited time in the outdoors and most but not all hunters should be called conservationist. Enviromentalist seem to believe man should not be part of the outdoors in any way, conservationist understand that man has ALWAYS been part of nature from the beginning and if we are good stewards we can and have improved it.
Post by: buglebrush on June 19, 2017, 08:48:30 PM
:yeah:Track? :chuckle: I've seen wolves. Multiple times. Had a wolf come right into our yard and try to get our dog. Have heard them howling more times than I can remember. Been followed off the mountain when packing meat with wolves howling all around me for hours. Have been on successful Wolf hunts. Have friends who trap them. Have had my best lion hound tore to shreds by wolves. Have found where they killed a whole string of deer, and never ate a bite, because they could run on top while the deer broke through. I'm a third generation Idahoan that has lived & hunted in this area for over 30 years. And yeah I've definitely seen tracks too. :sry:Wolves. These types of threads keep putting up by people who don't actually live in Wolf infested country, and don't know what they are taking about. It just gets tiresome. :sry:
Responses like this get tiresome as well. Where exactly is this wolf infested country you speak of? You ever even seen a track?
Elkinrut this is not an attack on you or your knowledge of Idaho but an explanation as to why you think wolves are no "big deal"
Elkinrut the reason you both live in the panhandle but have a very different opinion is bugle has lived and hunted in Idaho for 30 years and he said he is a 3rd generation Idahoan. I am willing to bet you moved here maybe 4-5 years ago? I don't remember elk ever just standing out in the open before wolves by the way. Idaho got after wolves in 2009 and then again(when allowed) and ever since 2011. I don't think you have seen great remote elk areas get decimated but most long time Idaho hunters have including me. The fish & game has done a great job and elk hunting in a lot of areas has come back and some areas never were really affected. After wolves got bad and infested more remote areas the elk moved closer to roads and into town and close by. The remote areas where you cant control wolves very well (think selway) may never come back to what they were. Its not that you cant hunt and trap these areas its the time factor of doing this enough to control a predator that can give birth twice a year to 6-8 or more new ones a year. The moose in unit 1 (not all areas but some of the best) have been hammered. I drew a one week late permit a few years ago and shot a dandy bull but what was sad was to see how few moose there was compared to the "good old days" So this is not about gee I killed a big bull wolves must not be that bad or if you just hunted harder you would have success. I have seen no real upside to wolves besides being able to hunt and trap them. Idaho was better off without them but I am willing to live with them since I have no choice. Before you ask I have seen a wolf track, heard wolves howl, called in and shot a wolf, had wolves come into our elk calls while bowhunting and my partner shot one with his bow, trapped a wolf which escaped and had half my buddies bear dogs killed by them. This is not critical of your ability as a hunter or that you know your way around some of the woods in Idaho it is just my opinion as to why you see wolves as no problem and don't understand why a lot of Idaho hunters hate them. I saw the bull you posted last year btw nice job! To the op just wait a few more years and I will bet you a hundred dollars you will also no longer "love" wolves. Check in with me in 2021 and get my address as to where to send the check!